Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87953 Case Number: LCR11708 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JOHNSTON MOONEY & O'BRIEN LIMITED - and - THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION |
Claim on behalf of 166 workers for compensation for loss of inconvenience differentials.
Recommendation:
8. In the light of the terms of the final package which was
agreed by the parties at the Conciliation Conference held on the
15th June, 1987, as outlined in the letter of 16th June from the
Industrial Relations Officer, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87953 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11708
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: JOHNSTON MOONEY & O'BRIEN LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 166 workers for compensation for loss of
inconvenience differentials.
BACKGROUND:
2. In late 1986, the Company entered into negotiations on a major
rationalisation programme which involved a number of redundancies,
changes in work practices and a reduction in overtime and
differentials.
3. Following a number of meetings at local level and conciliation
conferences, an overall package as outlined in a letter from the
Industrial Relations Officer dated 16th June, 1987, was agreed
between the parties with the exception of the application of a
formula for payment of compensation for loss of earnings. This
issue was the subject of a Labour Court hearing held on 24th
August, 1987, (Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR11402 refers).
Agreement was subsequently reached on this issue.
4. The Union is now seeking payment of compensation for loss of
earnings on behalf of 166 workers who lost inconvenience
differentials as they had their starting times changed. The Union
maintains that it was agreed that these workers would be paid in
respect of this loss in the earlier part of negotiations on the
reorganisation. In rejecting the claim the Company contends that
total earnings is the main criterion in deciding on this claim as
some workers might work overtime under the new arrangements to
boost their earnings.
5. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 3rd November, 1987. Conciliation conferences were
held on 27th November, 1987, and 1st December, 1987. As no
agreement was possible both parties agreed to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 28th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Management wrote to the Union on 9th February, 1987,
setting out the Company's proposals for the acceptance of
their package plan. In this letter it was stated that 18
times the loss of inconvenience differential would be paid.
Loss of overtime earnings would be referred to the Labour
Court. The workers, at a general meeting subsequently agreed
to accept the Company's offer regarding differentials and to
refer other matters to the Court.
2. When the compensation was claimed the Company said that
any worker who increased his earnings through overtime would
not be paid compensation. The Union submits that it had
reached agreement with the Company on the issue of loss of
inconvenience differentials and at no stage was it agreed
that any worker would not be paid if he increased his
earnings through overtime. Accordingly the Company should
honour the agreement they made.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Following a conciliation conference held on 16th March,
1987, the Company in a letter dated 24th March put forward a
considered package proposal. Under loss of earnings the
Company clearly and unambiguously stated "no compensation for
loss of earnings is justified or warranted where earnings
opportunities are maintained or improved as a result of new
working conditions".
2. At a further conciliation conference held on the 15th
June, 1987, final settlement proposals were agreed. These
proposals clearly stated "that the terms of the Company
letter of the 24th March, 1987, to apply subject to the
following amendment". No amendment was made to the principle
of loss of earnings not being paid to employees whose overall
earnings have increased.
3. The Company have paid out a total of #466,000 for
compensation for loss in earnings to date.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. In the light of the terms of the final package which was
agreed by the parties at the Conciliation Conference held on the
15th June, 1987, as outlined in the letter of 16th June from the
Industrial Relations Officer, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd February, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman