Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89813 Case Number: AD904 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COW AND GATE LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST198/89.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the loss of earnings (agreed at
a figure of #160 per week) should be calculated on the basis of
the following formula:-
The Company should amend the 1985 formula by reducing the
"benchmark" in service to 2 yrs and 6 months and by increasing to
6 months the period for which earnings fall to be maintained in
the case of employees with service above the benchmark.
The Court accordingly decides that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which was appealed by both parties be amended to
provide for payment to the two appellants of a figure of
compensation based on the above revised formula.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89813 APPEAL DECISION NO AD490
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: COW AND GATE LTD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST198/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in processing of specialised infant
food, employing approximately 160 workers. In May 1986, two
laboratory technicians transferred to a 2 cycle, 6 day roster
shift pattern (one worker worked a 4 cycle shift for a period
after May, 86 to cover for absences. The worker was also absent
on sick leave for a period of time). In October, 1987, the
Company sought to revert the workers to the day structure. This
was resisted by the Union and discussions took place throughout
1988 and in the early part of 1989. The workers transferred back
to day work in May, 1989. The resulting loss of earnings was the
subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation on 18th July,
1989. His Recommendation is as follows:-
"There are recognised formulae for dealing with loss of shift
pay, overtime etc. The union claim of 2.5 times the annual
loss is relevant only in circumstances of long-term
institutionalised shift and overtime working where it is
regular and rostered. By no stretch of the imagination can
the present case fit into these categories. The company has
set its face against stated formulae. In those
circumstances it is not my intention to state a formula.
I do believe that a case has been made which warrants some
compensation. In arriving at a sum, I have taken into
account, the shift and overtime elements, other settlements
in the plant, including a recent Rights Commissioner
Recommendation, the duration of shift working, and
continuing co-operation as here-to-fore.
I, therefore, recommend that the sum of #3200 be paid to each
claimant in full and final settlement of their claims, and
for their co-operation with the changed methods of working
consequent upon the elimination of the particular shift."
Both the Union and Company appealed the Recommendation to the
Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Wexford on 15th
December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two workers concerned are suffering financial
hardship because of the decrease in their income. It is human
nature to set financial commitments based on regular income
patterns, particularly when such patterns have been in
existence for a number of years.
2. The laboratory itself has undergone a number of changes
in the type of duties and responsibilities performed there.
The two workers are somewhat fearful of the future. It is
imperative that the Company make reasonable compensation for
significant changes.
3. The payment of 2.5 times the annual loss is reasonable
when compared with the drop in income.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a formula in place in the Company to cater for
loss of earnings arising from temporary change in work
patterns. In the particular circumstances of the two workers
concerned with the claim, the shift working was introduced to
cover a short-term production peak.
2. Overtime worked by the two claimants was not structured.
It was covered on a week to week basis on a voluntary system.
3. There is adequate facilities to deal with the two
workers claim on the basis of the formula in place in the
Company. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
inappropriate and should be varied.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the view that the loss of earnings (agreed at
a figure of #160 per week) should be calculated on the basis of
the following formula:-
The Company should amend the 1985 formula by reducing the
"benchmark" in service to 2 yrs and 6 months and by increasing to
6 months the period for which earnings fall to be maintained in
the case of employees with service above the benchmark.
The Court accordingly decides that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which was appealed by both parties be amended to
provide for payment to the two appellants of a figure of
compensation based on the above revised formula.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
18th January, 1990 --------------
A.McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman