Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88859 Case Number: AD894 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. ST315/88 concerning a claim for compensation for loss of earnings as a result of a re-organisation within the Company.
Recommendation:
9. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court does not find
any grounds upon which it can recommend any alteration in the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation be upheld and
that the appeal should fail.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88859 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD489
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. ST315/88 concerning a claim for compensation
for loss of earnings as a result of a re-organisation within the
Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is owned by Mitsui Mining & Smelting Company
Limited, Mitsui & Company Limited (both Japanese) and the
Department of Finance. The Company commenced production in 1976
and its product electrolytic manganese dioxide is exported
worldwide to dry battery manufactures.
3. Towards the end of 1986 the Company circulated the group of
unions with a document titled "Consolidating Operations" which
outlined the severe difficulties which the Company was facing in
the market place. Over the following two months the Company
examined all aspects of its production operation and prepared an
"action and corrective plan" in February, 1987. This plan was
circulated to all of its employees as well as being discussed with
the Union and shop stewards.
4. The plan dealt with various cost saving measures including the
question of revised manning levels and changes in work practices
and method of compensation to cover all losses sustained by the
workers as result of the changes. The changes outlined in the
plan were implemented from April, 1987. As a result of these
changes the worker concerned was replaced as chargehand by another
worker in April, 1987 on his shift which resulted in a loss of pay
of #23 per week. He was paid at chargehand rate up to the end of
January, 1988 in accordance with the agreed formula for
compensation even though he was not a chargehand during that
period.
5. The worker referred his case for investigation to a Rights
Commissioner who issued the following recommendation dated 12th
September, 1988.
"No doubt, there are anomalies in the way in which
rationalisation plans effect various workers. In this case,
I do not see how I can possibly give compensation or force
the Company to promote the claimant to his previous position.
The letter of offer from the I.R.O. dated 23/3/87 stated
inter alia that "On the basis of full acceptance and
implementation of the A and C plan from 1/4/87, the following
proposals apply ..." In the light of the subsequent
acceptances, I have to recommend that the claim fails as in
this case, the Company has not acted unreasonably."
6. The worker appealed against the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on 10th January,
1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker considers that the main reason for his
demotion was his absenteeism record. He had to take a
considerable amount of sick leave in 1985 and 1986. However,
this was due to an accident at work. Prior to the accident
he had an excellent attendance record.
2. He has since been called upon to act as chargehand on a
number of occasions since January, 1988. He has been paid
chargehand rate for these periods. Hence his ability to carry
out chargehand duties is not in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The changes and final settlements were the subject of
detailed discussions between all the parties concerned with
the assistance of the conciliation service of the Labour Court
(details supplied to the Court). The workers were informed at
all times of developments during the course of these
negotiations. The final settlement plan was accepted by all
the Unions and the workers concerned.
2. The worker has received the agreed monetary terms of the
Company's action and corrective plan which was designed to
deal with a total change in Company operations.
DECISION:
9. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court does not find
any grounds upon which it can recommend any alteration in the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation be upheld and
that the appeal should fail.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
27th January, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.