Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87950 Case Number: LCR11729 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the restoration of supervisory rate and its retention.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends
that the employee concerned accepts the final outcome on the
proposed formula for compensation for loss of earnings as covered
in the Industrial Relations Officer's letter of 18th September.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87950 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11729
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the restoration of supervisory rate and its
retention.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns a worker who commenced employment with the
Institute on 18th February, 1980. He was employed as a supervisor
at the Institutes Cavan centres engineering unit and his rate of
pay was #11,129.13 per annum. In June, 1987 the Institute decided
to close the engineering unit. The Institute started a box-making
project in Cavan to replace the engineering unit. The worker was
given the option of either accepting redundancy or that he fill
the post of assistant supervisor in box-making at a salary of
#8,813 per annum. The worker accepted the post of assistant
supervisor in box-making and commenced in his new position in
June, 1987. The Union claimed that the worker should be
compensated for his loss, this was quantified by the Union as
approximately #2,872 per annum. The Union's claim is for the
retention of the full supervisory salary by the worker on a
personal basis. The Institute rejected the claim but offered
compensation of three times the weekly loss multiplied by years of
service. This amounted to #1,084.60. This offer was rejected by
the Union which then sought to refer the matter to either a Rights
Commissioner or the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
This was not acceptable to the Institute as negotiations were in
progress on a national basis on the question of the appropriate
compensation formula to apply in cases such as this. A
conciliation conference took place on 17th September, 1987
concerning the question of appropriate compensation for loss of
earnings following regrading. On 18th September, 1987 the
Industrial Relations Officer confirmed the formula which had been
agreed as follows:-
- Weekly loss X 3 weeks per year X number of year's service,
No age differential will apply.
On 4th December, 1987 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on
11th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not given a proper consideration for the
position of supervisor in the new unit. He has proven his
ability as both an organiser and motivator of trainees. His
commitment and dedication to the Institute has been exemplary
as both staff member and voluntary worker. He feels aggrieved
over being denied an interview for the supervisor's job, with
no unfair reflection on the person who succeeded with his
application.
2. There will always be a need for someone in the Cavan
Centre of the Institute with engineering qualifications and
abilities to deal with incidental repairs. The worker is
prepared to act as both assistant supervisor and engineer
provided he is paid the full supervisory engineering rate.
3. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the Institute to
agree to allow this valuable employee to retain his full
supervisory rate. Many local employers in similar situations
have agreed to this type of arrangement. There have been no
repercussive claims as a result.
4. Fear of repercussive claims is a poor reason for denying a
worthy person a proper long term settlement of his claim. A
lump sum settlement of claim is not acceptable and is not the
correct approach in the long term.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The compensation formula recommended for acceptance, both
by the Institute and the Union, is intended to have national
application and should apply to the worker. This formula
represents a very reasonable approach to cases such as this.
2. The formula will result in a payment to the worker of
#1,104.60 which is greater than the offer previously put to
the worker and which was rejected by the worker.
3. There is no justification for departing from this formula
in this particular case.
4. The Institute adopts the same approach with other national
issues, the nationally applied redundancy formula is similarly
applied. Pay agreements negotiated with the Union are also
applied nationally.
5. The worker's post in the engineering unit was redundant
and the redundancy terms that apply nationally within the
Institute were offered to the worker. However the Institute
was able to offer an alternative position to the worker as
assistant supervisor, box-making. The worker opted for the
new post.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends
that the employee concerned accepts the final outcome on the
proposed formula for compensation for loss of earnings as covered
in the Industrial Relations Officer's letter of 18th September.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell,
___________________
____4th_March,__1988.
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.