Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88450 Case Number: AD8877 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH COUNTRY BACON P.L.C. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST38/88 concerning a claim on behalf of a worker that he be re-instated to the position of maintenance helper.
Recommendation:
9. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation is reasonable and
should be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88450 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7788
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH COUNTRY BACON P.L.C.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST38/88 concerning a claim on behalf of a worker that he be
re-instated to the position of maintenance helper.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a general operative by
Hanley Meats Limited on 21st October, 1974. He worked in the beef
production area up to 1978 when he was transferred to the building
section as a builders helper. He remained in the same position
attached to the maintenance department until November, 1986.
3. In July, 1986 the Company entered into a merger agreement with
the other west of Ireland bacon companies, the result of which was
the formation of a new Company Irish Country Bacon plc. The
merger resulted in the implementation of a major rationalisation
programme which involved approximately 400 redundancies.
4. As part of the rationalisation programme the worker concerned
along with another worker, was transferred to the production area
from the maintenance area which left one maintenance helper in
that area. The transfer resulted in a loss of earnings for the
worker concerned (details supplied to the Court).
5. The worker claimed that he was transferred out of seniority.
The Company rejected this claim and the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
Following an investigation held on the 16th May, 1988 the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 23rd May,
1988.
"The seniority of the claimant has not been established to my
entire satisfaction. Even if he had much longer service, I
did not see any evidence that juniority is the one and only
criteria to be used when making redeployment decisions. I
consider that given the serious difficulties which the firm
has experienced in the past, that it might be allowed to
manage its resources in the most advantageous way. I would
not consider that the choice for redeployment in this case
represented an unreasonable exercise of that power. I
therefore recommend that the claimant accept his
redeployment, whilst noting the Company's statement to me,
that if there is an increase in construction related
maintenance, he will be returned to maintenance duties."
6. The Union appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal in Longford on 29th November,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker contends that his seniority should allow that
he remain in the maintenance helper category and maintains
that he has more seniority than another worker who still
remains in that category. The worker concerned is not seeking
to disenfranchise his colleague but is asking that the
seniority list be operated in a fair and equitable manner.
2. The Union contend that the establishment of the worker's
seniority can be satisfied by the Company seniority list which
will clearly demonstrate the facts in this regard. The Court
is asked to recommend that the worker on the basis of
established seniority, should revert to the position of
maintenance helper and that the consequential loss experienced
by him would be redressed by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There is a long-standing agreement in relation to transfer
of people between the maintenance and production sections.
Under this agreement when numbers in maintenance or production
go down, or where requirements in either area increase, then
people would be transferred to the other section under the
terms and conditions which apply in that section. Transfers
have taken place on a strict seniority basis.
2. The transfer of the worker concerned is strictly in
accordance with that agreement and the Company can see no
reason for departing from it, particularly as it was
introduced originally at the Union's request and as the Union
continues to support the agreement in all cases.
DECISION:
9. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation is reasonable and
should be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
22nd December, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.