Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8935 Case Number: AD8919 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NAVAN CARPETS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW333/88, concerning the transfer of two workers.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Union accepts that no compensation is
due to the two workers on their transfer from the Warehouse."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
5th December, 1988, appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on 14th February, 1989, in Kells.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. One of the workers concerned has been scheduled for
transfer to fret repairs and also has to act as a back-up
beamer should the need arise. His new job entails working
shift. As a warehouse man he only worked days. His basic
wage is #151 per week compared to #173.69 per week in the
warehouse. He also receives a shift differential of #27.81
per week.
2. The second worker was transferred to spool-setting. This
job offers a bonus payment on the basis of output. The
Company views this as allowing the worker maintain his former
earnings.
3. The two workers' jobs are being made redundant in unique
circumstances. The jobs themselves are now being done by
contractors. This is the second occasion that employees' work
has been given to contractors. Previously in 1983, transport
was contracted out, resulting in 3 drivers being transferred.
On that occasion the drivers received a sum of #1,500 net.
4. The Union claims that the warehouse workers are in a
similar position to the drivers. In their new jobs they will
have greatly changed conditions. One will be required to work
shift and the other becomes a piece worker. The Union seeks
the same compensation as given to the drivers in 1983 - this
payment to be indexed by wage increases agreed and applied to
wage rates since 1983.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The alternative jobs given to the two workers necessitate
minimal disruption to their working pattern, do not involve
any loss of earnings and provide for increased earning
potential as detailed below:
Warehouse Spool Setting Fret Repair
wage Wage Wage
Basic 132.29 129.29 151.53
Bonus 41.40 52.71 27.28
__________________________________________________________
Total 173.69 182.00 178.81
4. 2. These transfers are straight forward internal transfers
and are not in any way different from the transfers which were
necessitated during the Company re-organisation of 1982 and
1984, and where an agreed formula for compensation for loss of
pay was applied. Where loss of earnings were incurred as a
result of these transfers, the following Labour Court formula
was implemented:-
Gross Loss over #10 - #10 x 10 = Lump sum compensation
for loss of earnings.
3. The transfers have not created any redundancies of
permanent or temporary personnel, which in turn minimises the
level of disruption to other employees.
4. The product being transferred to Richmond Storage is a
traded product and is not manufactured in Navan. The main
commercial considerations in transferring traded products
(i.e. tufted carpets) to Richmond Storage were as follows:
(a) Not sufficient space in Navan to handle volume of tufted
products.
(b) Not economically feasible to extend warehousing
facilities at Navan.
(c) Traded products are delivered from Britain and Belgium,
and stored in Richmond Storage, and any further
transportation and handling into and out of Navan would
considerably reduce trading margins on these lower priced
products. The Company's viability is heavily dependant
on profitable sales generated through traded products.
DECISION:
5. The Court does not find grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation and accordingly it rejects the
Union's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8935 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1989
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: NAVAN CARPETS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW333/88, concerning the transfer of two
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 1988, the Company advised staff of its intention
to discontinue storing and handling tufted carpets and as a result
2 warehouse workers would be transferred, (tufted carpets are
being handled by Richmond Storage). It was decided that the
changes would take place after the August holidays and the
transferred workers would be re-trained for alternative jobs
within the factory. The two workers were transferred to
production jobs on 26th September, 1988. The Union claimed that
the 2 workers should receive compensation on a similar basis to
that paid to lorry drivers in 1983/84. This payment to be indexed
by wage increases agreed and applied to wage rates since 1983.
The Company rejected the claim on the basis that the workers
concerned had been placed in positions where they suffered no loss
of earnings, whereas the lorry drivers had suffered a considerable
loss. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner who issued
the following findings and recommendation on 10th November, 1988.
"Findings
If the payment to drivers had not been made in 1983 I believe
that the Union would have no merit in its argument. But a
substantial sum was paid to the workers concerned. At that
time they suffered a loss of earnings but the payment was
greatly in excess of the formula. In this case the 2 workers
concerned should suffer no loss. Neither worker has held the
warehouse position for more than 5 years. I do not know the
conditions surrounding the payments in 1983, but I do not
accept there is a similarity meriting compensation.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Union accepts that no compensation is
due to the two workers on their transfer from the Warehouse."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
5th December, 1988, appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on 14th February, 1989, in Kells.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. One of the workers concerned has been scheduled for
transfer to fret repairs and also has to act as a back-up
beamer should the need arise. His new job entails working
shift. As a warehouse man he only worked days. His basic
wage is #151 per week compared to #173.69 per week in the
warehouse. He also receives a shift differential of #27.81
per week.
2. The second worker was transferred to spool-setting. This
job offers a bonus payment on the basis of output. The
Company views this as allowing the worker maintain his former
earnings.
3. The two workers' jobs are being made redundant in unique
circumstances. The jobs themselves are now being done by
contractors. This is the second occasion that employees' work
has been given to contractors. Previously in 1983, transport
was contracted out, resulting in 3 drivers being transferred.
On that occasion the drivers received a sum of #1,500 net.
4. The Union claims that the warehouse workers are in a
similar position to the drivers. In their new jobs they will
have greatly changed conditions. One will be required to work
shift and the other becomes a piece worker. The Union seeks
the same compensation as given to the drivers in 1983 - this
payment to be indexed by wage increases agreed and applied to
wage rates since 1983.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The alternative jobs given to the two workers necessitate
minimal disruption to their working pattern, do not involve
any loss of earnings and provide for increased earning
potential as detailed below:
Warehouse Spool Setting Fret Repair
wage Wage Wage
Basic 132.29 129.29 151.53
Bonus 41.40 52.71 27.28
__________________________________________________________
Total 173.69 182.00 178.81
4. 2. These transfers are straight forward internal transfers
and are not in any way different from the transfers which were
necessitated during the Company re-organisation of 1982 and
1984, and where an agreed formula for compensation for loss of
pay was applied. Where loss of earnings were incurred as a
result of these transfers, the following Labour Court formula
was implemented:-
Gross Loss over #10 - #10 x 10 = Lump sum compensation
for loss of earnings.
3. The transfers have not created any redundancies of
permanent or temporary personnel, which in turn minimises the
level of disruption to other employees.
4. The product being transferred to Richmond Storage is a
traded product and is not manufactured in Navan. The main
commercial considerations in transferring traded products
(i.e. tufted carpets) to Richmond Storage were as follows:
(a) Not sufficient space in Navan to handle volume of tufted
products.
(b) Not economically feasible to extend warehousing
facilities at Navan.
(c) Traded products are delivered from Britain and Belgium,
and stored in Richmond Storage, and any further
transportation and handling into and out of Navan would
considerably reduce trading margins on these lower priced
products. The Company's viability is heavily dependant
on profitable sales generated through traded products.
DECISION:
5. The Court does not find grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation and accordingly it rejects the
Union's appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___6th___March,___1989. _______________________
B. O'N. / J. C. Deputy Chairman