Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86781 Case Number: AD8717 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CM 17.046 concerning the repayment of loans/advances.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has carefully considered the additional evidence
presented at the hearing which became available after the Rights
Commissioner's investigation. The Court has concluded that in the
circumstances outlined, the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be amended to provide that the specific 8 workers on shift
C who are the subject of this appeal should be liable to repay .25
of the loan/advance and that the worker on shift B, who had
pre-booked his holidays, should not be liable for any repayment of
the loan/advance.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86781 THE LABOUR COURT AD17/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 17 OF 1987
PARTIES: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CM 17.046 concerning the repayment of
loans/advances.
Background:
2. The settlement of a dispute in the Company in April, 1983,
provided for the payment of an advance/loan of #610 by the Company
to most of the 41 shift operatives involved. In June, 1985, an
agreement was reached between the Company and the Union which,
among other things, provided that, should no unofficial action or
interference with production of any kind take place up to 31st
December, 1986, then the Company would regard its entitlement to
repayments of the loans/advances as having lapsed. In early May,
1986, an unofficial picket was placed on the Company by drivers
and most of the shift workers who were rostered for duty did not
attend work normally and production was interrupted. Accordingly,
the Company considered that the June, 1985, agreement had been
breached by the workers and sought repayment of all
loans/advances. This was unacceptable to the Union who submitted
that four workers worked normally for the period in question, two
others lost some time and eight others lost only half time.
Twenty two workers did not attend work at all. As no agreement
could be reached at local level the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner who, having investigated the dispute, issued
the following Recommendation:-
"The breach by some of a part of the Agreement would not
automatically impose sanctions on all; the Agreement
remains in force until the end of 1986. That breach did
no more than to activate the terms of Clause 4 on those
who breached Clause 3.
The first group took no part in the unofficial
industrial action nor did they support it; their record
therefore remains intact. The second group lost time
due to no fault of their own. They were endeavouring to
give service and it appears that Management understood
why that they had to leave. Their record must also
remain intact.
The third and fourth groups did give support to the
unofficial industrial action so they now become obliged
to repay the loan/advance. Two of the fourth group must
however be exonerated because they were on sick leave at
the time and it may be presumed that they gave no
support to the industrial action".
(The names of those workers exonerated from repaying the
loans/advances were referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation). The Union appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the basis that it considered
nine other workers should not have to repay the loans/advances.
The Court heard the appeal on 5th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Eight operators on shift 'C' work a 4 shift rota of 12
hours per shift totalling 84 hours over two weeks.
These workers were due on duty on Thursday 1st May,
1986, of the week in question, which was the 2nd week
of their rota, and they worked their normal 12 hour
shift on that date. On Friday 2nd May, 1986, they
passed an unofficial picket placed on the Company's
main gate and again worked a normal day's work. When
they reported for work on Saturday 3rd May, 1986, they
discovered the plant had been shut down by management.
They concluded that no work would be available to them
and therefore, did not report for duty on that date.
Consequently, these eight operatives worked 72 hours
of the 84 hour fortnight and if any deductions of the
loans/advances should arise in their case it should
only be a token deduction, taking all the
circumstances into consideration.
(ii) An operator on shift 'B' had holidays pre-booked with
the Company for Monday 5th May, 1986, and was not due
to return to work until Tuesday 6th May, 1986. The
unofficial action ceased on Monday evening 5th May,
1986. Therefore, this worker should not be penalised
in respect of deduction of loan/advance.
(iii) The Union signatories of the 1985 agreement honoured
the agreement in full and the information put forward
by the Union in this appeal only came to the Union's
notice subsequent to the Rights Commissioner's
hearing. Therefore, the Union's appeal in respect of
the nine workers concerned should be upheld.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The unofficial action in question commenced on Friday
2nd May, 1986, and finished on Monday 5th May, 1986.
Out of this period the operators on shift 'C' only
worked 12 hours when they reported for work on Friday
2nd May. Had they so wished they could have reported
for work on Saturday 3rd May but they choose not to do
so. Consequently, the workers are in breach of the
1985 agreement and are liable to repay to the Company
the loans/advances in question. In this respect, the
Company does not accept the Union's contention that
because they worked 72 hours out of their total
liability of 84 hours over two weeks these workers
should not have to repay the full amount due.
(b) The Company considers that the 1985 agreement was a
collective agreement but the Right Commissioner
interpreted it otherwise. Accordingly, the Union was
very successful in the case it presented to the Rights
Commissioner and any further concession on this matter
would be seen as a retrograde step by the Company.
(c) The Company is prepared to meet the Union with a view
to reaching an agreement on the method by which the
monies due should be repaid by those liable to do so.
DECISION:
6. The Court has carefully considered the additional evidence
presented at the hearing which became available after the Rights
Commissioner's investigation. The Court has concluded that in the
circumstances outlined, the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be amended to provide that the specific 8 workers on shift
C who are the subject of this appeal should be liable to repay .25
of the loan/advance and that the worker on shift B, who had
pre-booked his holidays, should not be liable for any repayment of
the loan/advance.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
Deputy Chairman
26th February, 1987
T.McC./P.W.