Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88417 Case Number: AD8874 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: JAMES DALY AND SONS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST 24/88 concerning disturbance compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation represented a reasonable solution to a difficulty
arising from a genuine difference of recollection, and does not
prejudice the issue of disturbance compensation for either side.
For this reason the Court decides that the recommendation should
stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88417 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7488
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: JAMES DALY AND SONS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation ST 24/88 concerning disturbance compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August, 1987 the Company advised the Union that it intended
to reduce the workforce in its Dominic Street Factory by five. A
local level meeting took place on 17th August, 1987 at which the
Company informed the Union that the five workers could either take
redundancy or transfer to the Churchfield factory. Two of the
workers opted for the transfer and accepted the pay and conditions
applicable in the Churchfield factory. This involved an
obligation to do shift work and a reduction in lunch break by half
an hour with a corresponding increase in basic pay. The Union has
claimed that it was also agreed that the workers would receive a
disturbance payment, whereas the Company states that no such
commitment was given. No agreement could be reached at local
level and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 18th May, 1988 and issued the
following recommendation -
"There is a direct conflict of evidence in relation to
an alleged commitment to pay some disturbance
compensation. That there was an expectation on the
Union side is evident. However expectations are not
always realised, particularly in the I.R. field.
I am satisfied that management expected a claim even if
it never gave an undertaking to meet it in any way. In
fact the Company by letter of the 5/11/87 to the Union
invited the Union to apply in writing if it so wished.
The Union is anxious to continue with the principle
established in 1974. In contrast the Company wishes to
maintain the later established principle of
compensation for loss of earnings only.
I would not wish to compromise either position,
therefore I recommend that without prejudice, the
company pays each claimant £100 in full and final
settlement of all their claims arising out of their
redeployment to Churchfield."
On 31st May, 1988 the Company appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court under section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 30th November, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is adamant that no undertaking was given to
make a disturbance payment. The only options available were
either redundancy or transfer. Both workers received
substantial improvements in their earnings on transfer to the
Churchfield factory and one of the workers had originally been
employed there. As the Rights Commissioner found no evidence
to support the Union's allegation it was illogical to conclude
that as he did not want to compromise either party the Company
should pay £100 to each of the workers concerned. The
disturbance payment made in 1979 covered a particular
situation and is not relevant to this case. When a worker
benefits from relocation there is no basis for a disturbance
payment. In contrast to other cases the workers were given
the opportunity of alternative employment with enhanced
earnings and transferred voluntarily, whereas in most
situations workers are relocated on an involuntary basis. The
Court has always recognised that where economic circumstances
determine change this negates any claims such as disturbance.
In the circumstances, no disturbance payment should be
made.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the agreement was made that these workers could
transfer to Churchfield, it was also agreed that a disturbance
payment, the amount of which was to be negotiated would be
made as in the past. In 1979 the Company paid disturbance
money of £150 to workers who transferred to the Churchfield
factory. This equates to a sum of £366 now, if the CPI Index
of 144% in the period 1979 to 1988 is applied and this formed
the basis of the Union's original claim. The Rights
Commissioner's award did not meet the Union's claim and was
not in line with previous payments made. However, in the
circumstances the Union after consultation decided reluctantly
to accept the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and it
should be upheld.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation represented a reasonable solution to a difficulty
arising from a genuine difference of recollection, and does not
prejudice the issue of disturbance compensation for either side.
For this reason the Court decides that the recommendation should
stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
9th December, 1988 ----------------
U.M/U.S. Deputy Chairman