Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87848 Case Number: LCR11649 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IARNROD EIREANN CATERING SERVICES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one employee for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the loss of earnings is a result
of disciplinary action arising out of the claimant's own actions.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87848 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11649
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN CATERING SERVICES
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
Claim, on behalf of one employee for compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a general porter. He has
been in the Company's employment since 1961. For the past 20
years, approximately, he has been covering relief cooking duties
at Connolly Station. For this he received a payment of #17.00 per
week. The porter's rate is #106.03 per week. In addition, the
worker received an allowance of #17.20 per week for performing
certain portering duties at Bus Arus (close to Connolly Station).
This arrangement commenced in June, 1984. In early 1987,
management, on a number of occasions, reprimanded the worker for
his general attitude, being absent from his place of employment
and for refusing to perform certain duties. A dispute also arose
concerning performance of cooking duties by the worker over the
Easter weekend. On April 21st 1987 the worker became engaged in a
dispute with a supervisor concerning portering duties. He went
absent from work without leave from April 22nd to April 28th
inclusive. On April 29th he resumed duty and submitted a medical
certificate covering the period of his absence. This is in breach
of Company regulations. A meeting was held on that day between
management, the worker, and his shop steward. Management stated
that as a disciplinary measure arising from unsatisfactory work
performance and unwillingness to perform the duties of his grade,
the worker would be transferred to Heuston Station with effect
from April 30th. Management contend that he was informed at the
same meeting that cooking duties were no longer required of him.
The Union contends that he was informed of this on 16th April,
1987. As a result of the loss of cooking duties and the move to
Heuston Station, the worker lost the two payments of #17 for
cooking duties and #17.20 for duties at Bus Arus. The Union
sought restoration of these payments to him or compensation for
the loss. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 24th July, 1987 and a conciliation conference
was held on 14th September, 1987. No agreement was reached,
however, and the matter was referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 4th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was informed, on 16th April, 1987, that he was
no longer required to perform cooking duties. Therefore, it
is invalid of the Company to state that he refused to perform
cooking duties over the Easter weekend which came later.
2. The worker believed that he was being over supervised and
this is how the incident with the supervisor arose. He
refutes any contention that he physically assaulted the
supervisor.
3. The reason the worker lost both allowances and was
transferred was because he questioned the Company's
interpretation of his rights on these issues.
4. The worker has been harshly treated and has suffered a
weekly loss of earnings of #34.20. The Union's claim is for
two and a half times his annual loss. Such a claim is
considered to be fair and reasonable, particularly in the
light of the effect on the worker's pension/mortality
benefit. The Company have at no time stated that the above
reduction in earnings is due either to a decline in business
or the recession.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was unsatisfactory when employed at Connolly
Station, both in refusing to perform his full duties and in
his behaviour towards his supervisors (details supplied to
the Court). He was not informed until April 29th that he was
no longer required to perform cooking duties. This was after
the Easter weekend when he refused to perform such duties.
2. It was necessary for the Company to transfer the worker
from Connolly Station to Heuston as a disciplinary measure
since it was considered that Heuston was a more suitable
location for him.
3. Because the worker's transfer and reduction in earnings
arose from disciplinary action, the Company contends that
there are no valid grounds for payment of compensation.
4. Concession of the Union's claim could create an
undersirable precedent.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the loss of earnings is a result
of disciplinary action arising out of the claimant's own actions.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
15th January, 1988 Chairman
A.K./J.C.