Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89688 Case Number: LCR12624 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARA MINES - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the implementation of L.C.R. 12396A.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made in this case, the
Court, having regard to the terms of L.C.R. 12396(A), recommends
that the three named workers (names with Court) should be paid a
sum of #2,000 each in full and final settlement of their claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89688 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12624
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TARA MINES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of L.C.R. 12396A.
BACKGROUND:
2. L.C.R. 12396A, issued in May, 1989, dealt with a Union claim
for compensation for three laboratory samplers for loss of weekend
working. The Recommendation read as follows:-
"The Court is of the opinion that the system of regular
rostering required by the Company comes so close to the
elements of shift working that some compensation is due to
the workers involved. The Court does not consider that such
compensation should be on the scale involved through loss of
ordinary shift premium as the change in work pattern and
lifestyle required is not so radical. The Court therefore
recommends that the parties negotiate a lesser amount than
was paid in those circumstances."
In subsequent negotiations the Company offered #3,000 (#1,000 to
each of the claimants). This fell far short of the Union's claim
which was based on a loss of #26,000 over a two year period. As
no agreement was reached the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference on the 25th August failed to resolve the dispute and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 18th October,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's offer of #3,000 amounts to only 11.6% of the
Union's claim. This hardly reflects the spirit of L.C.R.
12396A which said that the working arrangements were so close
as to warrant compensation. Compensation should be closer to
100% than zero, i.e. somewhere between 50% and 100% or in
excess of #13,000 total for the three people concerned.
2. Bearing in mind that many workers within the plant have
received substantial monies for loss of overtime which was in
no way as structured or as frequent as the claimants' the
Court is requested to recommend a compensatory figure
somewhere between 50% and 100% of the loss, based on the
established formula of two years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants are employed on a day work basis. They
never worked shift and their contract of employment did not
require them to do so. No alterations took place in their
conditions of employment or hours of work to warrant
compensation. Furthermore, the Company has not compensated
any other group for overtime losses.
2. In its original claim in 1988, the Union included 11
workers. It later made a claim on behalf of the 3 claimants,
arguing that they were a special case. The Court recommended
that the Company make a concession to the claimants which the
Company has reluctantly done.
3. Those involved in this claim are the same people who had a
claim for compensation for loss of overtime rejected by the
Court in 1988 (L.C.R. 11683 refers). They cannot now pursue
that same claim on the basis that compensation should be paid
for air alleged loss of "shift rota." The Company must remain
consistent in its approach to compensation claims of this
nature in view of agreements already reached with other large
groups as any deviation from that policy would result in
long-term serious industrial relations problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made in this case, the
Court, having regard to the terms of L.C.R. 12396(A), recommends
that the three named workers (names with Court) should be paid a
sum of #2,000 each in full and final settlement of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
7th November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.