Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8781 Case Number: LCR11790 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of a worker for credit for length of service.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made at the
hearing on 30th March, 1987 and at the resumed hearing on 16th
March 1988, together with the additional written evidence supplied
by both the claimant and the Company is satisfied that the
claimant has failed to establish that the date of 12th April, 1963
as previously determined by the Company and the Unions in drawing
up the list of agreed dates in which service commenced, is not
correct.
The Court therefore recommends that the claimant accept that the
12th April, 1963 is the correct date for the commencement of his
service.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8781 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR11790
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of a worker for credit for
length of service.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1973, the five main coal merchants in Dublin amalgamated to
form a new Company - Coal Distributors Limited (C.D.L.). At that
time the service with the 'old' employer was identified and a
register setting out the years of service of each employee was
drawn up. During the intervening years this register has formed
the basis for agreement between the Company and all unions on
issues related to service. According to the register, the worker
concerned commenced employment with the 'old' employer on 12th
April, 1963. This has been disputed over the years by the worker
who claims he began work with the 'old' employer in 1953 and
worked there until the amalgamation of the coal merchants in 1973.
The Union, in April, 1986, requested the Company to re-examine the
service record of the worker. The Company declined to do so on
the basis that the service of all employees in C.D.L. was agreed
in 1973. On 23rd January, 1987, the Union referred the matter to
the Labour Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation. The Union agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated
the dispute on 30th March, 1987 and a further hearing was held on
16th March, 1988 (in the intervening period further information
was supplied to the Court).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was a helper on a truck belonging to the 'old'
employer which was involved in an accident in 1956. This
lead to the death of the other helper and the worker attended
the subsequent inquest (details supplied to the Court). This
is clear evidence that he was working at the time.
2. The revenue and social insurance records of the worker
show that he has been paying contributions since 1953 (details
supplied to the Court). This evidence is in line with the
worker's contention that he began work with the 'old' employer
in 1953. The worker would have reported for work in the years
1961 and 1962, but no records of such reporting are kept by
the Company. If no work was available he would have had to
seek it elsewhere, however by reporting the worker would have
kept to the conditions of service.
3. The length of service issue has been a bone of contention
for many years. The Company say that it had nothing to lose,
by not crediting the service back to 1953. The Union believes
this to be untrue. Many workers are unhappy with the length
of service register. When it was being compiled one of the
difficulties in assessing service was the lack of records of
the previous employment of some of the employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The length of service register was made available at all
times to the unions and indeed during the period of the
amalgamation, the list containing the appropriate credit for
service for the worker concerned was in the possession of all
the unions and available to all members, and any query on
length of service with the former employer should have been
raised at that time. Service is of particular importance in
the Company. The list is not only used for calculating
service for pension and redundancies, but also by the workers
in claiming particular work/overtime on the basis of
seniority.
2. There is no question in management's mind regarding the
accuracy of the lists (details supplied to the Court).
Meticulous examination took place of the service of each
employee and length of service was calculated very precisely
in both years and weeks. The worker has never claimed
seniority in respect of two other workers from the 'old'
employer who are senior to him on the list and to whom this
worker would have been ahead of if service was credited from
1953.
3. The standing practice in the coal trade has been that
casual staff who are laid-off in the summer must report for
work and declare their availability for work on 1st October of
each year, otherwise service is not considered continuous.
The worker concerned here seems to have been in England in
1961 and 1962 for approximately 18 months and during that time
did not work with the Company. The social welfare records
supplied show only 6 paid contributions for 1961 and 14 for
1962 and as there were no credit contributions in these years
he was obviously not in this country at the time. It is clear
therefore that the worker did not maintain continuity of
service and therefore his service from 1963 on has been
calculated correctly and any evidence relating to the period
prior to this is therefore not relevant.