Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88207 Case Number: AD8822 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal, by the Union, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation S.T. 183/87 concerning compensation for loss of a chargehand allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair in the circumstances and accordingly the
Court rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88207 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2288
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the Union, against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation S.T. 183/87 concerning compensation for loss of a
chargehand allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This appeal concerns a worker who has been employed with the
Company since 1979. He was appointed chargehand in the Chemical
Services Section in 1982. In 1984 the Company amalgamated the
Chemical Services Section and the Goods-Inwards Section and the
worker was appointed chargehand of the new amalgamated section.
Due to pressure and stress in this position the worker stood down
for 3 months from 4th March, 1985 to 4th June, 1985. After he
resumed his chargehand duties the worker asked for certain changes
in procedures which would reduce the work load to what he
considered manageable proportions. The person who had covered for
him had also found the job stressful. The Company did not make
the changes requested and on 6th June, 1986 the worker stepped
down permanently. The worker claimed that after he stepped down
substantial changes were made which improved the job of chargehand
and that he had proposed some of the changes. The worker claimed
he should be compensated for the loss of £29.70 per week which he
had incurred. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement was
reached through local negotiations and the matter was referred to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
31st August, 1987 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
" I have considered very carefully the evidence of the
parties which was well presented. I cannot find any
grounds based on merit per se for an award to the claimant.
He received such compensation as was his due arising from
the rationalisation of the Stores area. He stood down to
protect his health and well being. I cannot see a
reduction from £249.72 per week to £220.02 as too high a
price to pay for the obvious advantages of being removed
from a stressful area of work. However I do appreciate
that he feels a sense of injustice and frustration that he
was not heard in his complaints. On that basis only and in
order to assuage such feelings I recommend that he receives
a sum in compensation of £200 gross as full and final
settlement of his claim."
On 29th February, 1988 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 21st April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The amount of the award from the Rights Commissioner is
totally inadequate given the circumstances of this case. The
Company would acknowledge that the job of chargehand is now
much more manageable.
2. The improvements made in procedures could have been made
earlier and management been a little more understanding of the
difficulties complained of by the worker.
3. The loss of his chargehand rate resulted in untold
suffering for the worker and his family due to arrears in
financial commitments. He accumulated debts as a result of
the loss, which he is still trying to repay.
4. No precedent would be claimed on the basis of a
sympathetic response to this claim. Humanitarian
consideration of the workers claim demands settlement on the
basis requested.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was promoted to the position, performed his
work in accordance with the agreed job description, and was
adequately compensated each year in addition to normal pay
increases by way of lump sums paid at the renewal of the
comprehensive agreement. These lump sums are paid in
recognition of co-operation with change in the course of the
preceeding year.
2. The worker chose to resign his position of chargehand of
his own free will. He had the option of pursuing his
grievance in the normal manner through the agreed grievance
procedure.
3. The worker is not entitled to compensation for not
performing duties which he has admitted to not being able to
perform.
4. There was no obligation on the Company to allow the worker
resume as a storeman/fork-lift driver once he resigned as a
chargehand. The Company did so in an attempt to facilitate
the worker.
5. In the interest of facilitating the worker the Company is
willing to go along with the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation but sees no basis for paying any further
compensation to the worker.