Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89284 Case Number: LCR12426 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation in respect of reduction in the Christmas Bonus.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and additional arguments put
forward in this case, the Court is of the view that the
difficulties arose initially because of the unusually informal
industrial relations in Allied Couriers. While the Union was
involved at the point of merger, the earlier informality continued
in the payment of lump sums and the introduction of the new
contracts which were accepted by the Allied Couriers staff. As
the contract was silent on the question of Christmas Bonus, the
Court accepts that there were different views on whether it would
continue to apply. While there was no undertaking given by the
Company, the Court nevertheless feels that in the interest of good
industrial relations some compensation should be paid to the
claimants and recommends that they be paid #200 per man in full
and final settlement.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89284 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12426
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of reduction in the
Christmas Bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns ten workers who are employed as
cash-in-transit staff at the Company's premises in James's Street,
Dublin. The Company was formed in 1987 following the merger of
Allied Couriers Ltd and Brinks-Mat (Ireland) Ltd. Prior to the
merger the former employees of Allied Couriers received a
Christmas Bonus which varied between #300 and #600 per person plus
a gift voucher. The new Company however pays a Christmas bonus
amounting to one weeks pay. The Union claims that it was given an
undertaking at the time of merger that the workers concerned would
not suffer a worsening of conditions and has claimed compensation
for the loss incurred. The Company states that it cannot honour
commitments made by a Company which no longer exists and that the
current bonus payment is adequate. Local discussions failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 6th July, 1987. Conciliation
conferences were held in October, 1987, February and October,
1988, and March, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 24th April, 1989. A Court hearing was held
on the 17th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the merger in 1987 the Union informed management
that a disturbance claim would be formulated, and the question
of the continuation of the normal Christmas bonus would also
be raised. The Union had received a guarantee from the then
managing director of Allied Couriers that the workers
concerned would benefit from the merger.
2. Before the Union had a chance to discuss the negotiations
of the merger with management, employees who reported for work
in March, 1987 were asked by management to sign a document
accepting a sum of money as a disturbance settlement for
moving to the new location at St. James's Street. The
majority signed this document under protest. It must be
emphasised that the Union was not given a chance to clarify
any of the issues concerning the merger of the two companies
before the workers were forced to sign the document relating
to disturbance money.
3. The Union has attempted on a number of occasions to have
the issue of the Christmas bonus raised and was given an
undertaking from a current director of the Company (then
Secretary of Allied Couriers) that an improved disturbance
offer would be made to the Union which would take into account
the Christmas bonus. Despite repeated efforts on the part of
the Union there has been no response from the Company.
4. The Union's efforts to pursue a disturbance claim on
behalf of the workers which would have encompassed all
elements of the merger, were deliberately frustrated by the
Management of Allied Couriers when they forced the employees
to accept an amount of money before the claim was even served
on the Company by the Union. The workers concerned enjoyed a
substantial Christmas bonus and would not have accepted the
figure proposed by the Company as full and final settlement of
their disturbance claim if they had known that the sizeable
Christmas bonus would be eliminated.
5. The payment of this bonus at Christmas to the workers,
formed a very important part of their overall conditions of
employment. The workers hoped to enjoy these conditions with
the new Company and were given a distinct impression that they
would do so by the outgoing managing director of Allied
Couriers. The Union claims a four year projection of the loss
of the Christmas bonus, which would be an equitable figure of
compensation to the workers concerned as the loss of the bonus
involves hardships to workers and their families at Christmas.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the companies amalgamated in 1987 the workers were
offered and accepted new terms and conditions of employment.
Under the new contract, the former employees of Allied
Couriers enjoyed enhanced wage rates and conditions of
employment, however, there was no provision in the new
contract for a Christmas bonus. Despite this, the former
employees of Allied Couriers accepted the new contract
(details supplied to the Court). Following representations
from the Union, and in the interest of good industrial
relations, the Company decided to pay a Christmas bonus to all
staff amounting to one week's pay. The Company cannot afford
to increase this bonus further.
2. The Company's gesture was a fair and reasonable resolution
of the Union's claim. It ensures that all the staff in the
Company enjoy equal wage rates and terms and conditions of
employment. Any concession of the Union's claim for the
former staff of Allied Couriers would unbalance the terms and
conditions of employment between the staff and would lead to
disunity, discord and dispute within the Company. The Company
requests the Court to recommend that the present Christmas
bonus arrangements are fair and equitable and should be
accepted by all the staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions and additional arguments put
forward in this case, the Court is of the view that the
difficulties arose initially because of the unusually informal
industrial relations in Allied Couriers. While the Union was
involved at the point of merger, the earlier informality continued
in the payment of lump sums and the introduction of the new
contracts which were accepted by the Allied Couriers staff. As
the contract was silent on the question of Christmas Bonus, the
Court accepts that there were different views on whether it would
continue to apply. While there was no undertaking given by the
Company, the Court nevertheless feels that in the interest of good
industrial relations some compensation should be paid to the
claimants and recommends that they be paid #200 per man in full
and final settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
P.P. Kevin Heffernan
7th June, 1989. Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.