Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8979 Case Number: AD8937 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD FOODS PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in a claim on behalf of a casual worker for full footwear allowance.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
finds no grounds for amending the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which it accordingly upholds. The Court so
decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8979 DECISION NO. AD3789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: WATERFORD FOODS PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation in a claim on behalf of a casual worker for full
footwear allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company operate a footwear allowance scheme whereby
permanent and seasonal employees receive a full allowance. The
claimant was a part-time canteen worker. She opted for redundancy
as part of a rationalisation programme. Afterwards she and two
other canteen workers did occasional relief work for the company.
The claimant received the full footwear allowance prior to her
being made redundant and also while employed as a casual worker in
1986 and 1987. In 1988 the company reduced the claimant's
footwear allowance entitlement to half. This decision was
disputed and a Rights Commissioner's investigation took place in
Dungarvan on 13th January, 1989. The Rights Commissioner
recommended as follows:-
"Clearly the claimant has not got the same status as
permanent workers or seasonal workers performing 40
hours work per week - and more. Neither has she the
equivalent status of part-time workers on agreed fixed
hours. In the circumstances that she may have received
the full allowance in the immediate past, as a carry
over from her near regular employment prior to
redundancy, I recommend that she receives the full
allowance for the year 1988 and thereafter reverts to
the .50 allowance payable to analogous grades".
On 30th January, 1989 the Union appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal in Waterford on 10th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The established practice is that employees working in
the canteen including the pool of releif employees, receive
the full footwear voucher each year. Management altered this
agreement in 1988 and reduced the value of the footwear
voucher by 50% to the claimant and to the other two pool
reliefs.
2. The claimant received the full value of the footwear
voucher as per the agreement, for the years 1985, 1986 and
1987 and not by way of an error as stated by management.
3. Management stated at the Rights Commissioner's
investigation that the claimant worked for eighty four days
during 1984, and for forty five days during 1985. These
figures are correct but it was not stated that the claimant
who was a full-time employee was in fact, seriously ill and
hospitalised during that time.
4. The claimant worked seventy six days during 1986, one
hundred and one days during 1987 and one hundred days or more
during 1988. This represents approximately 39% relief cover
and accordingly it is reasonable that the footwear allowance
agreement should apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operate a footwear allowance scheme whereby
permanent and seasonal employees receive the full allowance of
#49.50 (present value). Seasonal workers normally work for
6-8 months per year. Employees who work restricted hours in
excess of the claimants receive only half the footwear
allowance.
2. The claimant had been a full-time employee from
1979-1985. As part of a rationalisation programme she opted
for redundancy in 1985. She was then offered occasional
relief work with the Company, as were 2 other employees who
also opted for redundancy (canteen employees). A practice has
operated since 1985 whereby any one of the three part timers
can be called in. The claimant worked nine weeks in 1985.
Fourteen weeks in 1986, eighteen weeks in 1987, twelve weeks
in 1988 and four weeks in 1989.
3. The claimant is a casual worker. She does not have the
same entitlements as seasonal or permanent employees, who
normally work 40 hours and in most cases 60 hours each week.
Cleaning people employed on a full-time basis get half
footwear allowance and other part-time employees in the same
area receive half footwear allowance. The claimant having
been made redundant, was through an error, given full
allowance in 1986 and 1987. This does not constitute an
entitlement. All employees on site who are obliged to work a
minimum of 40 hours receive a full allowance while all those
on part-time including members of other Unions receive half
that allowance.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
finds no grounds for amending the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which it accordingly upholds. The Court so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th May, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman