Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87557 Case Number: AD8770 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH GLASS PLC - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation NO. CM/17466, concerning the loss of a day's pay to two employees.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87557 THE LABOUR COURT AD70/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 70 OF 1987
Parties: IRISH GLASS PLC
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO 12 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation NO. CM/17466, concerning the loss of a day's pay to
two employees.
Background:
2. The Company closed for two weeks in August, 1986 and holidays
were arranged to cover this period. All day workers plus 'A'
shift resumed work on Tuesday, 19th August at 8 a.m. The three
other shifts resumed as follows:
'B' shift - 4 p.m., Tuesday, 19th August.
'C' shift - 12 midnight, Tuesday, 19th August.
'D' shift - 8 a.m., Wednesday, 20th August.
During the closedown a skeleton staff was on duty, in addition to
a number of craftsmen and helpers including the two claimants.
They both arrived for work at 8 a.m. on the 19th August but as
they were part of 'D' shift they were not due to resume work until
8 a.m. on Wednesday the 20th August. They were noticed arriving
for work and were instructed to go home. The Union, on their
behalf, subsequently claimed that they be paid for the day (the
19th August). This was rejected by Management and as no local
level agreement could be reached, the Union referred the case to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
3. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on
the 16th February, 1987, issued the following recommendation on
the 17th February:
"Both men came in on a misunderstanding so I recommend
that their claim be settled with payment of three hours
each for the day".
This recommendation was rejected by the Union which appealed it to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on the 20th August, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The reason the two workers concerned reported for work on
the 19th August was due to their understanding that they
would be advised individually to return to their shift
when required. No specific notice to the contrary was
issued by the Company. The notice which was posted was a
general one and merely advised of the start up times of
each shift. It did not specifically state that any shift
workers working on days were to return to their shifts.
(b) In the absence of such a direction and given that similar
situations had occurred in the past, it was not
unreasonable for the claimants to assume that they were
to continue to work on days until they were otherwise
advised.
(c) The claimants were involved in considerable inconvenience
and some expense in travelling to and from work on that
day. The Union contends that if there was a
misunderstanding it was caused by the Company and that
the payment of a day's pay should be conceded to the
claimants.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The re-start date and time was posted on the notice-board
for all to see and it is implicit that it also ended the
daywork period for shiftworkers.
(b) The Company concedes that a similar situation happened
before but it went unnoticed and an error like this does
not mean that certain rights have been established.
(c) The Company cannot agree with the Union's contention that
the men should have been individually told to pick up
their shift. The situation in a closure is different to
one where the plant is in production with one of the
eight machines down. In that situation the people in
charge would monitor the situation from day to day and
give instructions regarding picking up shifts
accordingly. The closure had a planned end date and
hence the date of return to shift is fixed.
/......
DECISION:
6. The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd September, 1987 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman