Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88337 Case Number: AD8834 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: P.D.M. LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST48/88 concerning a claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of earnings arising out of a rationalisation programme which resulted in a cut back in driving duties.
Recommendation:
10. The Court does not find any grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88337 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD3488
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: P.D.M. LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST48/88 concerning a claim on behalf of a worker for compensation
for loss of earnings arising out of a rationalisation programme
which resulted in a cut back in driving duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the processing and sale of timber in
three main areas, (a) the production of telegraph poles for
Telecom Eireann/E.S.B., (b) stud fencing and agricultural timber
and (c) the retailing and sale to the building industry of hard
woods and soft woods.
3. Because of a reduction in the demand for telegraph poles and
the closure of the soft woods and hard woods trading business the
Company embarked on a rationalisation programme. Twenty-one
workers in this area were made redundant which resulted in the
Company's transport fleet being reduced from four trucks to two.
4. One of the drivers accepted redundancy, another (the worker
concerned in this appeal) was transferred to the Creosote Yard
while the remaining two remained on driving duties.
5. As a result of the driver being transferred, he was no longer
required to work overtime and he did not qualify for meal and
other expenses. On this basis the Union submitted a claim to the
Company for compensation for loss of earnings. The Company
rejected the claim and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
6. Following an investigation held on 31st March, 1988, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 8th
April, 1988 -
"On the question of loss of overtime I am not convinced that a
loss has been sustained relative to the two remaining drivers
who have sustained losses of 36% and 41% respectively on last
year's earnings. In my view the claimant has not suffered
losses of this magnitude and I recommend that his claim fails
on these grounds alone. I wish to record the Company's
statement (1) that the claimant has first priority on driving
duties when they arise in future and (2) the Company's entire
satisfaction with the claimant in the performance of his
duties as a driver over the years".
7. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 30th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker concerned has eighteen years service with the
Company, the past twelve as a driver. He applied for the
position of driver as it is deemed to be a promotion post
because it has a higher basic rate, greater earning potential
through overtime working, and expenses (meal and over-night
allowances). Because of the Company's decision to re-locate
the worker while he still retained his driver's rate he
suffered a substantial loss of earnings (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The worker, who held the position for twelve years, had a
reasonable expectation that his level of earnings would be
maintained.
3. The Rights Commissioner, in his recommendation, laid
heavy emphasis on the other two drivers' losses. These
losses were not substantiated by any documentation. Even if
the point was sustainable, the other drivers' losses, alleged
or otherwise, had no bearing on this case. The fact was that
the worker concerned suffered a substantial loss of earnings
due to the rationalisation problem.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The loss of earnings experienced by the worker resulted
from of a serious and significant downturn in the Company's
trading over the past twelve months. This downturn in
business resulted in his being retained in employment and
keeping the same basic rate of pay. He continued to earn
overtime at a rate on average of more than £60 per week since
he moved into the Creosote Yard.
2. The Union is seeking to penalise the Company for
retaining the worker in its employment. He has been retained
on a rate of approximately £15 above that appropriate to a
yardman.
3. Any loss in earnings has been the result of a serious
reduction in the level of Company business, and as such, no
compensation is justifiable.
DECISION:
10. The Court does not find any grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman