Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88667 Case Number: LCR12103 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GYPSUM INDUSTRIES PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation in respect of loss of earnings and promotional opportunities of 30 miners.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the loss of earnings resulting from the
non-filling of the vacancy is small, and confined to a small
number of claimants only. The Court does not see merit in the
case and does not recommend its concession.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88667 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12103
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GYPSUM INDUSTRIES PLC
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of loss of earnings and
promotional opportunities of 30 miners.
BACKGROUND:
2. Early in 1987 the general foreman at one of the Company's
mines went into early retirement and the Company incorporated his
duties with those of the mine engineer. The Company did not make
a further appointment to the post of general foreman. In June,
1987 the Union requested a Rights Commissioner to investigate the
case and argued that the post should be filled. The Rights
Commissioner however ruled that the Company was correct in
suppressing the post because it was no longer necessary. The
Union subsequently lodged a claim for compensation (in the amount
of #2,000 per man) on behalf of its members, for loss of potential
earnings and promotional opportunities, resulting from the
elimination of the post of mine engineer. The Company rejected
the claim on the ground that the dispute had already been dealt
with by a Rights Commissioner. As no agreement could be reached
in discussions at local level the dispute was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 13th July, 1988.
A Conciliation Conference was held on 17th August, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 29th August,
1988. A Court hearing took place in Cavan on the 11th October,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision to incorporate the position of
general foreman with that of mine engineer has adversely
affected mining members in that they have suffered a loss of
earnings and promotional opportunities. The practice had
always been that, in the event of the foreman being absent,
one of the supervisory grades would step up into his position,
thus creating a vacancy at supervisory level. On such
occasions, one of the miners would fill the post left vacant
by the supervisor. Staff who stepped up were paid an "acting
up" allowance for the period of time in question.
2. As a result of the Company's decision to eliminate the
post of mine foreman, Union members' opportunities for
promotion within the mine are greatly reduced. Consequently
the Union is claiming a once-off payment of #2,000 per worker
for the members involved. The custom and practice has been,
and indeed written agreements have stipulated, that where the
Company is involved in rationalisation and where there have
been savings effected by this rationalisation the Company must
share the savings with the employees. The saving to the
Company because of the suppression of the position of mine
foreman, is in the region of #17,000 to #20,000 per annum.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union, on the 29th June, 1987, requested a Rights
Commissioner to "recommend that the Company reverse their
decision not to fill the post of general foreman." The claim
was submitted on behalf of three supervisors and five relief
supervisors, who are covered by the claim currently before the
Court. The Rights Commissioner did not recommend concession
of the claim, and the Union subsequently lodged a claim for
compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of its members.
The Company having regard to the factors which caused it to
decide against making a further appointment and the
circumstances with regard to manning at the mine, does not see
any justification for the current claim.
2. The level of compensation claimed is grossly
disproportionate to any alleged loss of earnings. Had the
position been filled, as sought by the Union, the person
appointed to the post would have had approximately five weeks
holidays. That person would have been replaced by one of the
shift supervisors, who in turn would have been replaced by one
of the operatives covered by the current claim. Taking into
account differentials for acting up, and shift premia, the
total payment would amount to #119.63 gross in respect of an
aggregate of five weeks annual leave.
3. Agreement has already been reached with general operatives
regarding the closure of this mine in 1989 and therefore the
question of ongoing "loss" does not arise.
4. 4. The Company explained its reasons for not filling the
position vacated by the general foreman to his union in
February, 1987. The Company successfully vindicated its
decision at a Rights Commissioner's investigation in June,
1987, in response to a claim submitted by the Union, which
included personnel covered by the current claim. The decision
by the Company has not resulted in any significant ongoing
material loss for the operatives concerned.