Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90139 Case Number: AD9027 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CONOCO IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation BC 2/90.
Recommendation:
6. In view of the very specific terms of the Company letter of
offer of the 14th August, 1989, which was signed by the claimant
on the 21st August, 1989, the Court feels compelled to uphold the
Company appeal against the Rights Commissioner's recommendation of
15th February, 1990.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90139 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2790
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CONOCO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation BC 2/90.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as manager of the Company's
Dublin distribution depot. In August, 1989, he took early
retirement from this position. Under a negotiated early
retirement/voluntary redundancy agreement (part of a
re-organisation and survival plan) with the Union's No. 1 Branch,
representing blue collar workers, it was agreed that No. 1 Branch
pensioners would receive petrol vouchers to the value of #120 per
annum. The claimant, who is a member of the Union's Managerial
and Supervisory Branch, is seeking to have this arrangement
extended to him. The Company has rejected the claim on the basis
that this facility was negotiated with the No. 1 Branch for its
members only and that there is no arrangement for clerical or
management staff to receive petrol vouchers (an agreement on early
retirement/voluntary redundancy was also negotiated with the
Union's No. 2 Branch, representing white collar workers and this
did not include the facility of petrol vouchers).
3. In the absence of agreement at local level, the Union referred
the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the
dispute on the 18th January, 1990, issued the following
recommendation on the 15th February:-
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties,
I believe that the broad aim of equity would best be
achieved by the extension to the claimant of the facility
of a voucher for #120 per annum for petrol. I do so in
the context that the same redundancy terms and conditions
were applicable to him as were negotiated with No. 1
Branch blue collar operatives and that his previous
conditions did entitle him to the use of a Company car
which on retirement he lost. Therefore it could be
argued that his losses are as great, if not greater, on
taking retirement, as those suffered by the No. 1 Branch
retirees."
This recommendation was unacceptable to the Company and was
appealed to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 11th
April, 1990. Subsequent to the Court hearing both sides submitted
additional information.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As distribution depot manager, the claimant was a
non-negotiated employee. Under the retirement programme
(outlined to him in a letter of the 14th August, 1989), he and
all other non-represented white collar employees received the
same package as the unionised white collar group (details
supplied to the Court). In addition he was allowed to
purchase his company car for its book value of only #1,600
although it was valued at more than #5,000. He accepted this
package and acknowledged in his acceptance that he had no
further claims on the Company (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Union has claimed that three grades were covered in
the survival plan, one of whom was management staff
represented by the Union's Professional/Managerial Branch.
This is untrue. The survival plan was negotiated with the
Union's No. 1 Branch for blue collar workers and No. 2 Branch
for white collar workers. No negotiations took place with the
Professional/Managerial Branch and the Company was unaware of
its existence until the 4th August, 1989, when that Branch
sought to represent the claimant.
3. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Union claimed
that the No. 1 Branch agreement was the yardstick used in the
compilation of the claimant's agreement. This is totally
incorrect. The No. 1 Branch agreement was concluded in June,
1989 and was signed on the 10th July. The No. 2 Branch
agreement was completed in August, 1989 and signed on the 5th
September. The claimant, together with the three other
non-represented employees, accepted and signed the redundancy
terms on offer on the 21st August following the completion of
the agreement with the No. 2 Branch.
4. In his recommendation, the Rights Commissioner said that
"the same redundancy terms and conditions were applicable to
the claimant as were negotiated with the No. 1 Branch blue
collar operatives". This is an error of fact. The Company
negotiated two agreements which, while providing broadly
similar severance terms, differed from each other in a number
of ways. As far as this dispute is concerned, the most
relevant difference is that the blue collar agreement provided
for petrol vouchers while the white collar did not.
Furthermore, it would be inconceivable that a depot manager
could retire under the terms of a blue collar agreement.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The No. 1 Branch agreement, concluded in July, 1989,
provided for a petrol voucher facility. On the 9th August,
the claimant accepted that he would volunteer for "terms that
are not less favourable" (details supplied to the Court).
2. It is illogical for Management to deny him a small element
of the package and for it to attempt to link his acceptance in
August to the agreement of the No. 2 Branch in October. The
only group who had members eligible for early retirement was
the No. 1 Branch and the No. 2 Branch agreement had no
provision for early retirees.
3. Prior to 1989, an agreement existed with the No. 1 Branch
which provided certain benefits to Company pensioners. It
cannot be inferred that that agreement was only intended to
cover those who were No. 1 Branch members; it was clearly
intended to cover all Company pensioners, although even
to-day, No. 1 Branch is the only unionised group to have
members of any age to whom it would apply.
4. The Rights Commissioner properly recommended that the
worker concerned should have been the beneficiary of the #120
petrol voucher. He correctly drew attention to the fact that
the claimant probably lost more than anybody else, given that
he had the use of a free car and petrol while other staff
merely lost the staff rebate facility.
DECISION:
6. In view of the very specific terms of the Company letter of
offer of the 14th August, 1989, which was signed by the claimant
on the 21st August, 1989, the Court feels compelled to uphold the
Company appeal against the Rights Commissioner's recommendation of
15th February, 1990.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___25th___June,____1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman