Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87618 Case Number: AD8789 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ARKLOW POTTERY LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal, by the Union, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/17910.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the workers in the printing section
were victims of the unofficial action and decides that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation be upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87618 THE LABOUR COURT AD8987
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 89 OF 1987
Parties: ARKLOW POTTERY 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/17910.
Background:
2. On 24th June, 1987 an unofficial work stoppage took place in
the factory. The following day management became aware that a
further stoppage was due to take place and at 11.00 a.m. posted a
notice to the effect that the factory would close for the
remainder of the day if the stoppage went ahead. It did go ahead
and the Company closed the factory. However, some sections
where work in progress had to be completed or essential work had
to be carried out, remained at work. In the printing department
the workers were not sent home until 2.00 p.m. The Union, on
behalf of these workers, claimed compensation for the three hours
lost that day. The Company rejected this claim. As no agreement
could be reached at local level the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner who recommended as follows:-
"It appears that the rest of the factory were notified
of the Company's intentions before the stoppage
commenced but that the Printing Section did not get the
notice until 11.30 a.m.; they therefore did not have an
opportunity of trying to prevent it and avoid its
consequences. They are accordingly entitled to some
redress and I recommend 1.50 hours' pay each."
On 12th August, 1987 the Union appealed this Recommendation to the
Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Arklow on 13th
October, 1987, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Printing department is located in a building
separate from the main factory and can operate
independently of the factory while stocks remain to be
processed. There was no need to send these workers
home as there was work there for them and the Company
should therefore be responsible for the time lost.
(ii) The workers concerned were not involved in the
unofficial stoppage. They continued to work as per
union instructions but were sent home.
(iii) Although the Union recommended acceptance of the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation the workers rejected it
and are claiming the full amount lost.
(iv) The Company's attitude to this claim could undermine
the industrial relations situation in the factory
because the workers have received no pay increase since
1984.
(v) The printing department was not notified of the
situation until much later than the factory workforce.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) A warning notice sent to the factory just prior to 11
a.m. did not reach the Printing Section until
11.30 a.m. However, this section was allowed to work
until 2 p.m. and therefore earned 2.50 hours more than
the rest of the factory (including lunch break). The
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation of 1.50 hours' pay
each seems adequate.
(b) The Company was forced to send all sections home,
otherwise a similar situation would have resulted in
one section being played off against the other (with
the Company caught in the middle), resulting in loss of
production and in-balance of stock, etc.
(c) Some small sections where work in progress had to be
completed, such as casting, mould-making and night
sweeping, completed their day as did essential services
such as Kiln Attendants.
(d) The Union are claiming payment for a full day which, if
conceded, would result in similar claims from other
sections. Also it would be a totally unacceptable
precedent for the Company to have to deal with, bearing
in mind that the stoppage was unofficial in the first
place.
(e) The Company appreciates the co-operation given by the
printing staff but unfortunately they were the victims
of an unofficial stoppage. The printing section is not
a separate unit, it just happens to be located in a
different building. All sections can work
independently to some extent. The Company could not
selectively lay off workers.
DECISION:
5. The Court considers that the workers in the printing section
were victims of the unofficial action and decides that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
4th November, 1987 --------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman