Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88185 Case Number: AD8823 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TARA MEATS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union and the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation BC 205/87, concerning compensation for loss of earnings for a beef unloading crew, consisting of 7 workers and 3 substitutes.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I recommend that the Company should
amend its offer to the equivalent of 18 months loss of
earnings and that this be dealt with as follows:
1. An initial payment of £600 net, tax paid, to be made to
each of the seven men.
2. At the end of twelve months following the introduction of
the new arrangement the parties should sit down together
and examine the extent of the losses in earnings due to
the new arrangements in the preceding twelve months. If
these net loss of earnings are greater than £400 per
person, then the spirit of the Company's original offer
should be implemented i.e. the difference made good. If
on the other hand the losses are equivalent or less than
£400 net per annum no further action should be taken.
I further recommend that any payment to the subs should come
out of the total payment to the seven men already specified".
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was rejected by both
parties, who appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The appeal was heard by
the Court on 7th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company estimated that the workers' loss would be of
the order of £400 net per worker, per year. Yet while
claiming to be conceding a lump sum equal to 12 months
compensation were, in fact, only giving £400 gross to each
worker. The Rights Commissioner eliminated this contradiction
by awarding compensation on the basis of a net lump sum for
net losses. However, the Union believes the formula suggested
by the Rights Commissioner, 1.5 times the loss, is too low.
The Rights Commissioner and the Company have both seriously
underestimated the amount of the losses which the workers will
suffer as a result of the change.
2. The workers' annual losses may eventually go as high as
£1,000 gross. This figure is based on the fact that the gross
earnings per man on Saturdays are £31.91 and that under the
new proposals no minimum number of Saturdays are guaranteed
and no minimum number of quarters to unload are guaranteed.
Saturday earnings could be reduced to almost nothing,
therefore, £600 net compensation is quite inadequate in the
circumstances.
3. Following the issueing of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, which was unacceptable to both parties, it was
agreed that Saturday unloading would continue normally.
However, almost immediately the Company failed to offer work
on 2 Saturdays. The workers believe that the guarantee of
Saturday work has effectively been broken and so the issue of
compensation must be resolved.
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation also failed to
satisfy the legitimate claims of the 3 substitute unloaders,
who will also suffer losses as a result of the change in
Saturday work.
5. The Union believes that in the circumstances compensation
equal to twice the annual loss, in the form of a £700 net lump
sum, payable immediately, to be adjusted after 12 months by
reference to the actual losses sustained, is justified. The
Union also seeks half of one worker's compensation to be
shared by the 3 substitutes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Saturday unloading system was reasonably equitable as
long as full loads of beef could be brought in for unloading.
However, due to the changing pattern of supplies, it is often
impossible to have sufficient quarters available for unloading
on a Saturday, so that the unloading rate can soar above £1
per quarter which is totally out of line with bearable costs
in the industry.
2. The Company propose that the normal unloading rate of 40p
per quarter be applicable to all unloading regardless of day
or time. This would result in a loss of overtime earnings for
the crew. If only 300 quarters were delivered on a Saturday
for example, at a rate of 40p per quarter, there would be a
gross crew payment of £120 shared between 7 men, giving
earnings of £17.14 per man gross. This contrasts with a
normal Saturday earnings of £31.85 gross. This would result
in a weekly loss of £14.71 per man per Saturday gross, or
£632.53 per annum (43 Saturdays having been worked in the
1986/87 year). The Company could eliminate the problem by
discontinuing Saturday loading and trying to arrange unloading
in the evenings during the week where the base rate of 40p per
quarter applies regardless of quantity. The unloading crew
have intimated dissatisfaction with this suggestion, and
accordingly the Company offered £400 gross per man as
compensation for the loss of earnings.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88185 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2388
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: TARA MEATS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union and the Company against Rights
Commissioner's recommendation BC 205/87, concerning compensation
for loss of earnings for a beef unloading crew, consisting of 7
workers and 3 substitutes.
BACKGROUND:
2. Beef is delivered to the Company in quarters and is unloaded
by hand. One supervisor and a 7 man crew is involved. Unloading
normally taken place outside working hours at a piece rate of 40p
per quarter for the whole crew, with the exception of the
supervisor. There are 2 exceptions to this system namely Saturday
mornings and early week-day mornings, when the rate for unloading
is paid at overtime rates. The Company propose to change the
unloading arrangements for Saturdays, offering the normal
unloading rate of 40p per quarter. The Company maintains that the
change is a result of a drastically changed pattern of supply to
the factory, where it is frequently not possible to have
sufficient quarters available for unloading on Saturday. The
Company does not deny that the workers concerned will suffer a
loss of income and it has offered to pay each worker the sum of
£400 compensation for this loss to the 7 man crew. The offer was
made in the context that the Company was really offering what it
believed to be compensation equivalent to one year's loss. The
Company also stated that if the compensation did not meet the
actual loss then it would make up the difference at the end of
1988, assuming the new system was introduced on 1st January, 1988.
The Company's proposal was rejected by the Union who sought
compensation equivalent to two years loss.
3. As agreement could not be reached at local level the dispute
was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. In
January, 1988, the Rights Commissioner issued the following
findings and recommendation:
"Findings
Having given full and careful consideration to the points
made by both parties I have come to the following conclusions
1. The issue really is how much compensation should be paid
should it be one years loss of earnings as the Company
have suggested or as the Union have suggested two years
loss of earnings.
2. I must acknowledge that there is clear evidence of a good
degree of understanding between the parties.
3. I appreciate that the Trade Union members feel that their
losses will be greater than that assumed by the Company.
Recommendation
In the light of the above I recommend that the Company should
amend its offer to the equivalent of 18 months loss of
earnings and that this be dealt with as follows:
1. An initial payment of £600 net, tax paid, to be made to
each of the seven men.
2. At the end of twelve months following the introduction of
the new arrangement the parties should sit down together
and examine the extent of the losses in earnings due to
the new arrangements in the preceding twelve months. If
these net loss of earnings are greater than £400 per
person, then the spirit of the Company's original offer
should be implemented i.e. the difference made good. If
on the other hand the losses are equivalent or less than
£400 net per annum no further action should be taken.
I further recommend that any payment to the subs should come
out of the total payment to the seven men already specified".
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was rejected by both
parties, who appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The appeal was heard by
the Court on 7th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company estimated that the workers' loss would be of
the order of £400 net per worker, per year. Yet while
claiming to be conceding a lump sum equal to 12 months
compensation were, in fact, only giving £400 gross to each
worker. The Rights Commissioner eliminated this contradiction
by awarding compensation on the basis of a net lump sum for
net losses. However, the Union believes the formula suggested
by the Rights Commissioner, 1.5 times the loss, is too low.
The Rights Commissioner and the Company have both seriously
underestimated the amount of the losses which the workers will
suffer as a result of the change.
2. The workers' annual losses may eventually go as high as
£1,000 gross. This figure is based on the fact that the gross
earnings per man on Saturdays are £31.91 and that under the
new proposals no minimum number of Saturdays are guaranteed
and no minimum number of quarters to unload are guaranteed.
Saturday earnings could be reduced to almost nothing,
therefore, £600 net compensation is quite inadequate in the
circumstances.
3. Following the issueing of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, which was unacceptable to both parties, it was
agreed that Saturday unloading would continue normally.
However, almost immediately the Company failed to offer work
on 2 Saturdays. The workers believe that the guarantee of
Saturday work has effectively been broken and so the issue of
compensation must be resolved.
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation also failed to
satisfy the legitimate claims of the 3 substitute unloaders,
who will also suffer losses as a result of the change in
Saturday work.
5. The Union believes that in the circumstances compensation
equal to twice the annual loss, in the form of a £700 net lump
sum, payable immediately, to be adjusted after 12 months by
reference to the actual losses sustained, is justified. The
Union also seeks half of one worker's compensation to be
shared by the 3 substitutes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Saturday unloading system was reasonably equitable as
long as full loads of beef could be brought in for unloading.
However, due to the changing pattern of supplies, it is often
impossible to have sufficient quarters available for unloading
on a Saturday, so that the unloading rate can soar above £1
per quarter which is totally out of line with bearable costs
in the industry.
2. The Company propose that the normal unloading rate of 40p
per quarter be applicable to all unloading regardless of day
or time. This would result in a loss of overtime earnings for
the crew. If only 300 quarters were delivered on a Saturday
for example, at a rate of 40p per quarter, there would be a
gross crew payment of £120 shared between 7 men, giving
earnings of £17.14 per man gross. This contrasts with a
normal Saturday earnings of £31.85 gross. This would result
in a weekly loss of £14.71 per man per Saturday gross, or
£632.53 per annum (43 Saturdays having been worked in the
1986/87 year). The Company could eliminate the problem by
discontinuing Saturday loading and trying to arrange unloading
in the evenings during the week where the base rate of 40p per
quarter applies regardless of quantity. The unloading crew
have intimated dissatisfaction with this suggestion, and
accordingly the Company offered £400 gross per man as
compensation for the loss of earnings.
3. The Company additionally offered to assess the situation
at the end of one years operation on the new rate, and to
compensate the crew for the loss of earnings actually suffered
year over year, if in excess of the £400 gross which should
have already been paid.
4. The Rights Commissioner made a recommendation of £600 per
man net, which is equivalent to approximately £852 gross. He
also added a proviso that whatever losses in excess of the
£400 offered by the Company, were actually suffered in the
light of twelve months experience, should be paid in addition
to the £600 net he recommended. This is excessively generous
and unrealistic, at a time when the Company, like many in the
Irish beef industry is doing its utmost to cut costs in the
interests of its continued health and employment potential.
What is especially alarming is such recommendations refer to
overtime payments and have nothing whatsoever to do with basic
pay rates.
DECISION:
6. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, the Court
whilst doubting the propriety of recommending net amounts, is of
the opinion that in this instance the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________________
11th May, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.