Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90164 Case Number: AD9021 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 457/89 concerning a claim on behalf of 3 workers for payment for the Friday preceding the October Bank Holiday in 1989.
Recommendation:
"It seems to me that the claimants should have worked the day
in question and then processed the matter through procedures.
It would not be possible to recommend payment of an
additional day's pay for those who have already enjoyed the
day off with pay. It seems to me that those who did work the
day would have an even stronger case in these circumstances
for an even greater payment.
Whilst I understand their frustration with the change of plan
holidays I cannot recommend concession of their claim."
6. The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 18th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union believes that agreements between it and any
Company is sacrosanct and can only be changed by mutual
agreement between the parties concerned.
2. It is fundamentally important that the Court uphold the
appeal if for no other reason but to show all concerned that
when an agreement expires the terms of the agreement or the
clauses that the Union is not happy with are not merely thrown
aside.
3. The Union asks the Court to vindicate the three workers
who are bringing this appeal so as to ensure that they are not
penalised for honouring their agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Management realised that trading patterns in the two years
following the signing of the Agreement had altered and all the
trends indicated that the Friday in question was coinciding
with a period of peak demand. Since the Company's survival
depends on the level of satisfactory service to customers
management felt that no useful purpose would be served by the
strict adherence to the terms of the 27th wage round relative
to the Friday closure.
2. Management explained the position to the clerical workers
and undertook to honour any holiday arrangements which workers
may have made. The workers concerned refused to accept the
Company position and opted to take the day's holiday and
remained out of work. Management pointed out that it was
imperative that certain essential functions which were
necessary to keep the Company operating must be carried out on
the day in question. The claim was rejected as the Company
genuinely believed it was acting in the best interest of the
Company, its customers and its workers and that all things
considered their approach had not been unreasonable. There
was never any intention to disadvantage the clerical staff or
treat them in an off-hand manner.
DECISION:
9. The Court accepts that it was not good industrial relations
practice on the Company's part to alter the Company/Union
Agreement regarding October Bank Holiday working arrangements.
However as the workers involved in the claim did not in fact work
on the Friday in question the Court does not recommend payment for
same.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90164 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2190
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 457/89 concerning a claim on behalf of 3
workers for payment for the Friday preceding the October Bank
Holiday in 1989.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1985, as part of the then wage round, agreement was reached
that Good Friday and the Friday before the October Bank Holiday
weekend would be taken as fixed days from the normal holiday
entitlement. It was also agreed that if any of the clerical
workers were required to work on the Fridays in question they
would be paid double time plus a day of in lieu.
3. In July, 1987 an agreement on the 27th wage round was reached
whereby Good Friday was no longer a fixed holiday but the Friday
preceding the October Bank Holiday was to remain a designated
fixed holiday.
4. In 1989 Management proposed that all workers, production and
clerical, attend for duty on the Friday before the October Bank
Holiday, in order to meet increased customer demand. Recent
trends had indicated to the Company that the Friday in question
was occurring during a period of peak demand. The production
workers were agreeable to work the Friday in question. The
clerical staff, through their Union representative, informed
management that they would not be accepting the Company's position
and that they would be taken Friday 27th October, 1989 as a fixed
holiday as per agreement. The Company was also informed that if
any of the clerical duties were carried out on that day a claim
for payment would be lodged.
5. Work in the switchboard and dispatch areas was carried out by
members of management on that day. The Union lodged a claim for
payment of a days wages on behalf of the three people who normally
work in these areas. The Company rejected the claim and the issue
was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the claim on
2nd February, 1990 and on 4th March, 1990 issued the following
recommendation:-
"It seems to me that the claimants should have worked the day
in question and then processed the matter through procedures.
It would not be possible to recommend payment of an
additional day's pay for those who have already enjoyed the
day off with pay. It seems to me that those who did work the
day would have an even stronger case in these circumstances
for an even greater payment.
Whilst I understand their frustration with the change of plan
holidays I cannot recommend concession of their claim."
6. The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 18th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union believes that agreements between it and any
Company is sacrosanct and can only be changed by mutual
agreement between the parties concerned.
2. It is fundamentally important that the Court uphold the
appeal if for no other reason but to show all concerned that
when an agreement expires the terms of the agreement or the
clauses that the Union is not happy with are not merely thrown
aside.
3. The Union asks the Court to vindicate the three workers
who are bringing this appeal so as to ensure that they are not
penalised for honouring their agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Management realised that trading patterns in the two years
following the signing of the Agreement had altered and all the
trends indicated that the Friday in question was coinciding
with a period of peak demand. Since the Company's survival
depends on the level of satisfactory service to customers
management felt that no useful purpose would be served by the
strict adherence to the terms of the 27th wage round relative
to the Friday closure.
2. Management explained the position to the clerical workers
and undertook to honour any holiday arrangements which workers
may have made. The workers concerned refused to accept the
Company position and opted to take the day's holiday and
remained out of work. Management pointed out that it was
imperative that certain essential functions which were
necessary to keep the Company operating must be carried out on
the day in question. The claim was rejected as the Company
genuinely believed it was acting in the best interest of the
Company, its customers and its workers and that all things
considered their approach had not been unreasonable. There
was never any intention to disadvantage the clerical staff or
treat them in an off-hand manner.
DECISION:
9. The Court accepts that it was not good industrial relations
practice on the Company's part to alter the Company/Union
Agreement regarding October Bank Holiday working arrangements.
However as the workers involved in the claim did not in fact work
on the Friday in question the Court does not recommend payment for
same.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
6th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.