Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8934 Case Number: LCR12294 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WARNER LAMBERT - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of earnings as a result of loss of office.
Recommendation:
8. As there is an established formula for loss of earnings in
this Company the Court recommends that it should apply. However,
in this case there is an additional element of loss of status and
the Court recommends that additional compensation of #1,000 be
paid.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8934 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WARNER LAMBERT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation for loss of
earnings as a result of loss of office.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of both chewing gum
base and bulk pharmaceutical at two plants located at Pottery
Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin. The Company's domestic selling
operation which distributes pharmaceutical/healthcare and
confectionery products to wholesale and retail outlets is also
based on the Pottery Road site.
3. Following a re-organisation exercise within the Company the
function of Quality Control (Q.C.) process inspector was
eliminated in the gum base plant (there is no such position in the
pharmaceutical end). As a result 3 workers were displaced, one
was assigned to the position of Q.C. inspector gum base (day
cycle), another to the position of temporary first line manager
gum base and the other reverting to the role of manufacturing
operative gum base. The Union lodged a claim on behalf of 2 of
the workers (Q.C., inspector and manufacturing operative) for
compensation for loss of earnings. The Company offered to pay
compensation according to an established agreed formula (details
supplied to the Court). The Union accepted the offer in respect
of the Q.C. inspector but rejected it in respect of the
manufacturing operative. The Union claims that as the
circumstances under which the manufacturing operative reverted to
the floor are unique, a separate redundancy formula should be
applied to the difference in salary and conditions of both jobs.
(This would have the effect of doubling the Company's offer of
#3,351.00). The Company refused to concede the Union's claim.
5. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 22nd September, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on 8th November, 1988. As no agreement was possible both
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
14th February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker concerned was given the option of reverting to
the shop floor or accepting redundancy. The worker opted to
go back to the floor. In doing so he automatically became the
most junior person in that area (as the date of his
appointment is 1/10/88). He also loses his staff status,
salary scale and suffers a diminution of other fringe benefits
all of which are unique to his former grade.
2. The Company's offer on the loss of earnings is based on an
agreed formula for set circumstances. It is the Union's view
that this worker's case is unique in that his job, salary
scale and other conditions have been made redundant and he has
now the most junior position in the Company. Accordingly a
different approach should be adopted when calculating his loss
of earnings. The Court is asked to recommend that the
redundancy criteria rather than the loss of earnings criteria
should be used in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The compensation offered to the worker is in line with
established precedent which has been supported on a number of
occasions by Labour Court recommendations. In fact the
Company believes that the offer as it is constructed is
generous, and was made on the basis that it compensated the
worker for the loss of both earnings and entitlements which he
would otherwise have expected to maintain in his quality
control role.
2. The worker was not made redundant. By reverting to the
shop floor he forfeited his claim to redundancy payment.
Accordingly under the circumstances the Court is asked to
recommend that the worker accepts the Company's offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. As there is an established formula for loss of earnings in
this Company the Court recommends that it should apply. However,
in this case there is an additional element of loss of status and
the Court recommends that additional compensation of #1,000 be
paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________
28th February, 1989. Chairman
M.D./J.C.