Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8877 Case Number: AD8810 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC131/87 concerning compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I am satisfied that in paying to
the worker the sum of #200 by way of compensation as
recommended by the Labour Court the Company discharged its
obligations. I therefore recommend that the worker's claim
must fail."
(The worker concerned was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The worker rejected the recommendation and on 12th January, 1988,
he appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
23rd February, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Seniority is a condition that has always existed in the
Company. In 1974, following a strike, agreement was reached
that seniority would continue. The trade unions have said
that the Company guarantee this. Labour Court Recommendation
No. 9901 states that staff reductions would be made in the
normal way with the junior man moving off the route, however,
this did not happen in the case of the worker concerned. He
was one of the senior men on his route, yet he was moved off
it.
2. The worker was not in dispute with the Company. He
was told he would suffer no loss of earnings.
3. The Rights Commissioner stated that the trade unions
operated in a totally constitutional and traditional fashion
with regard to the consultation with its branch executive.
The worker contends that the trade unions had no right to
break the seniority agreement without consulting the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company accepted and upheld Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10619 in good faith and assumed that on
payment of the compensation the matter would be closed.
Despite this the Company has done all in its power to cater to
the worker's requests and to ensure he retained his dignity
and personal rights.
2. The worker concerned accepted the payment of #200 at the
time and did not contact the Company regarding further
compensation until 16th June, 1987.
3. The Company feels that since the Labour Court
Recommendation was accepted by both parties, it is under no
obligation to pay anything in excess to any one person. The
Company further maintains that there would be serious
repercussions were it to accede to the claim.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having carefully considered all the submissions in
this case, decides that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
be upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8877 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1088
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC131/87 concerning compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In relation to the implementation of one person operated
double deck and large capacity single deck buses in Dublin, a
temporary suspension of employees at Clontarf Depot took place
between the 24th December, 1985, and the 11th January, 1986.
Following resumption of work in January, a Labour Court
investigation took place and on 8th July, 1986, the Court issued
Recommendation No. 10619, which recommended that having regard to
all the circumstances, the claimants should be paid #200 in
compensation for the period of suspension. The worker concerned
in this appeal was paid the sum recommended by the Court, however,
he maintained that he should be fully compensated for all his loss
of earnings during that period, which he estimated would probably
amount to an additional #300. The worker contended that he did
not support or accept the Court's Recommendation and thus was not
bound by it. The Company said that the Recommendation had been
accepted by both it and the trade unions and therefore it was
under no obligation to pay anything in excess to any worker.
3. On 29th October, 1987, the matter was investigated by a Rights
Commissioner and on 9th November, 1987, he issued the following
findings and recommendation:
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and given full and careful
consideration to the points made by both parties I have come
to the following conclusions:
1. The worker impressed me as a conscientious and
honourable person.
2. The worker asserts his rights as an individual as
distinct from his obligation to be bound by decisions
made by others. I must note his sturdy individuality
and his emphasis upon personal rights.
3. On the other hand I am satisfied that the Company in
accepting Labour Court Recommendation No. 10619 did so
in the knowledge that this had been accepted by the
trade union also.
4. I am also satisfied that the trade union before
accepting this Labour Court recommendation operated in a
totally constitutional and traditional fashion with
regard to the consultation with its Branch Executive.
Recommendation
In the light of the above I am satisfied that in paying to
the worker the sum of #200 by way of compensation as
recommended by the Labour Court the Company discharged its
obligations. I therefore recommend that the worker's claim
must fail."
(The worker concerned was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The worker rejected the recommendation and on 12th January, 1988,
he appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
23rd February, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Seniority is a condition that has always existed in the
Company. In 1974, following a strike, agreement was reached
that seniority would continue. The trade unions have said
that the Company guarantee this. Labour Court Recommendation
No. 9901 states that staff reductions would be made in the
normal way with the junior man moving off the route, however,
this did not happen in the case of the worker concerned. He
was one of the senior men on his route, yet he was moved off
it.
2. The worker was not in dispute with the Company. He
was told he would suffer no loss of earnings.
3. The Rights Commissioner stated that the trade unions
operated in a totally constitutional and traditional fashion
with regard to the consultation with its branch executive.
The worker contends that the trade unions had no right to
break the seniority agreement without consulting the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company accepted and upheld Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10619 in good faith and assumed that on
payment of the compensation the matter would be closed.
Despite this the Company has done all in its power to cater to
the worker's requests and to ensure he retained his dignity
and personal rights.
2. The worker concerned accepted the payment of #200 at the
time and did not contact the Company regarding further
compensation until 16th June, 1987.
3. The Company feels that since the Labour Court
Recommendation was accepted by both parties, it is under no
obligation to pay anything in excess to any one person. The
Company further maintains that there would be serious
repercussions were it to accede to the claim.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having carefully considered all the submissions in
this case, decides that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_________________________
21st March, 1988 Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.