Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88561 Case Number: LCR12023 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GATEAUX LIMITED - and - BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION |
Claim on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. It is not disputed that this worker left her place of work and
went home without permission from her supervisor or other Company
representative. She was paid while she stayed in the canteen and
if she had continued to make herself available for work the Court
would have recommended that she be paid. In the circumstances,
the Court does not recommend that she be paid wages for periods of
time when she was not available to work.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88561 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12023
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GATEAUX LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. During 1984/85 as a result of complaints from employees
regarding cold temperatures in the factory, the Company installed
a new heating system consisting of overhead gas heaters. On 16th
February, 1988 the worker here concerned informed the Union branch
secretary that she was working directly under a heater and it was
causing her some distress. The branch secretary informed the
production manager who undertook to take steps to resolve the
problem. On 2nd March, 1988 the worker again complained of the
excessive heat and asked her supervisor for permission to go to
the cloakroom. Her shop stewards took the matter up with
management but were unable to reach any agreement. The worker,
who had gone to the canteen at her official break time and
remained there, left the premises at 12.00 noon having indicated
that it was impossible to work in the conditions that prevailed
and that it would be damaging to her health to do so. She was not
paid from 12.00 noon that day until she resumed work at normal
starting time the following day. The Union on her behalf sought
compensation for the wages and overtime that she had lost. The
Company rejected this claim. As no agreement could be reached at
local level the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No basis for a settlement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 1st July, 1988 and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court investigation into the dispute was held on 2nd September,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The problem with the excessive heat had been brought to
the attention of management and, despite a reasonable length
of time elapsing, the Company failed to take any action to
have this matter rectified. Since this incident took place
the Company has altered the position of the heater in order to
direct the heat in a different direction.
2. The worker was only paid up to 12 noon for the day in
question and has lost 4½ hours' wages and also 3½ hours'
overtime which was available to her that day and which she
normally would have worked. The Union is seeking that she be
paid her full day's wages plus her lost overtime for that day.
3. The worker was told she would be paid for the day if she
reported sick. However, she was not sick but rather had been
overcome by the heat.
4. The heaters only heat the area directly beneath them and
this resulted in workers down the line still feeling very
cold.
5. The Company appears to have confused a number of incidents
which involved this worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company undertook to investigate the purchase of
deflectors for the heaters as a result of complaints about the
heat beneath them.
2. The Company's record of the day in question is that the
worker concerned sought a meeting with the production manager.
She expressed concern that a chargehand had complained about
her to the production manager but, in the presence of her shop
steward it was explained that this was not the case. The
chargehand had however mentioned that she was unhappy with the
heat. The shop steward accepted this position but the worker
was not prepared to accept the situation. She left the
production manager's office and subsequently walked off the
plant, clocking out during normal production hours.
3. The day after the incident the Union sought payment for
the time the worker lost. In the course of a meeting with the
general manager the worker advised the company that she had
not been ill the previous day but had walked off the plant in
protest.
4. Other workers work under the same heater and the Company
has not received any complaints from them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is not disputed that this worker left her place of work and
went home without permission from her supervisor or other Company
representative. She was paid while she stayed in the canteen and
if she had continued to make herself available for work the Court
would have recommended that she be paid. In the circumstances,
the Court does not recommend that she be paid wages for periods of
time when she was not available to work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
19th September, 1988 ----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman