Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8782 Case Number: AD8738 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH T.V. RENTALS LTD. - and - TASS |
Appeal, by the Company against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning disturbance compensation to two unit managers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8782 THE LABOUR COURT AD38/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 38 OF 1987
Parties: IRISH TELEVISION RENTALS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Company against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation concerning disturbance compensation to two unit
managers.
Background:
2. In 1985 the Company undertook a comprehensive re-organisation
of its operations. Discussions took place on various dates,
including 2nd May, 1985, on the question of disturbance
compensation. Compensation in the Company has traditionally been
based on the formula "travelling time difference x five days x 48
weeks x the hourly rate." The Company contends that it was agreed
at three meetings that disturbance payment would be made only to
individuals required to move, and that such compensation would be
on the basis of standard agreed formulae. Worker A was until
August, 1985, employed in the position of Branch Arrears
Representative within the Bray Branch. This position became
redundant as a result of the re-organisation. The worker applied
for a position as Sales Supervisor and was subsequently offered a
position as Sales Manager in a retail outlet at South Great
Georges' Street, Dublin, which she accepted. Worker B was
employed as Senior Engineer at Bagenalstown and as a result of
re-organisation was offered and accepted the position of Depot
Manager at Bagenalstown. Subsequently, in October, 1985 he was
offered and accepted a position in Cork, taking charge of the
Company's new retail outlet there. Both employees sought
disturbance compensation as a result of the re-organisation under
the agreed formula. The Company was not willing to pay such
compensation and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner
who held an investigation on 19th and 20th November, 1986 and
recommended as follows:
"The Agreement can be interpreted in two ways so that
each side may reasonably put their own interpretation
on it. But it appears that at the meeting on 2nd May,
1985 the Union got the impression that the disturbance
compensation would apply in cases such as the present
ones and it was a factor in their acceptance of
re-organisation.
Therefore I am recommending that their claim be
conceded."
The Company appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 13th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union co-operated with the re-organisation on the
basis that there would be no redundancies and that
redeployment would result in disturbance compensation.
(ii) It was agreed with the Company that persons who were
transferred to unit manager positions would be paid the
normal disturbance payment. The Company is now
contending that this is not the case.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Worker A accepted promotion into a new position and
received an increase in gross salary of #3,937 per
annum, from #7,839 to #11,776.
(b) Worker B moved to Cork, his home town, and it was
emphasised that he would not be eligible for any
disturbance compensation if he accepted the position.
(c) Both workers exercised choice in accepting their
respective positions. Neither of them was required to
move to these positions. The Company had guaranteed
that no redundancies would take place as a result of
the re-organisation and had stated that disturbance
compensation would be paid only when workers were
required to move.
(d) For the above reasons the Company is appealing the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation that disturbance
compensation should be paid in these cases.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald.
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th May, 1987.
A.K./J.C.