Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88651 Case Number: LCR12032 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRETON ROECRETE LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of chargehand differential.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view
that the Company's offer of #800 is reasonable and recommends that
it be accepted by the claimant. The Court notes that this payment
is in respect of the tax year 1987/88.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88651 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12032
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRETON ROECRETE LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of
chargehand differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company are manufacturers of precast prestressed concrete
hollowcore slabs for the construction industry. The worker
concerned commenced employment with the Company in 1973. In 1977
the worker was appointed to a position of lorry driver and in
January, 1983 the worker moved to a new Contracts Department which
had been set up and acted as chargehand when required and was paid
the appropriate rate (this was on a continuous basis). The worker
was out of work for a 23 month period, 26th March, 1986 to 24th
February, 1988 due to an accident at work and on his return to
work the chargehand differential of #25.72 was not paid to him.
Following local level discussions on the issue the Company made an
offer of #500 compensation this was unacceptable to the worker and
the Union made a formal claim for #2,500. No agreement could be
reached and on 17th June, 1988 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 28th June, 1988 at which a settlement
proposal was put forward for the payment of #800 in full and final
settlement of the claim. This was agreed to by the Company but
the worker concerned rejected the offer. Therefore, on 17th
August, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 13th September, 1988. There was a difference of
opinion between the parties as to the date at which the worker
took up chargehand duties, the worker claimed that the correct
date was 1977 and the Company claimed that it was 1983. At the
hearing it was agreed that 1983 would be taken as the date in
processing this claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Without any consultation with the worker, the Company
decided to cease paying him the chargehands rate on his return
to work in February, 1988. The matter was not dealt with in a
fair and reasonable manner by the Company. The offer of #800
was in effect less acceptable than the original offer of #500
as the latter would have been a nett figure based on the
worker's tax situation in the 1987/88 year.
2. Compensation for loss of earnings arising from
re-organisation is a well accepted practice in industry. In
another claim, investigated by a Rights Commissioner, the
Company accepted that the appropriate compensation was two
years difference between the chargehand and general
operatives' rate (details supplied to the Court). This
worker's loss of earnings, based on a forty hour week, amounts
to #1337 per annum and in the circumstances compensation of
#2,500 is not excessive.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over the past few years there has been a major decline
in work in the construction sector in Ireland and this Company
has been hit very badly. The Company has worked very hard at
breaking into the export market in order to save as many jobs
as possible and it is essential for the Company to be cost
conscious.
2. The worker was absent from work from 20th November, 1983
to 22nd June, 1984 and from 26th March, 1986 to 24th February,
1988 due to accidents at work. Therefore the worker was a
chargehand for only 32 months and was paid the relevant rate.
The Contracts Department is no longer in operation and the
other workers either transferred to the factory or took
redundancy. In the cirucmstances, the Union's claim should
not be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view
that the Company's offer of #800 is reasonable and recommends that
it be accepted by the claimant. The Court notes that this payment
is in respect of the tax year 1987/88.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th September, 1988 Evelyn Owens
U.M./U.S. ----------------
Deputy Chairman