Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD902 Case Number: AD9019 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COPE FOUNDATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Foundation against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. G.C. 40/89 concerning compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not find grounds for altering the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD902 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: COPE FOUNDATION
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Foundation against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. G.C. 40/89 concerning compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to cutbacks in its financial allocations the Foundation
has had to reorganise its services and their location. In May,
1989 management proposed the closure of the kitchen in the Block B
Unit as part of the rationalisation exercise. Ten workers were
involved in this change which meant that meals were now to be
prepared in St. Paul's Kitchen and then transferred in containers
to the various units (through a cook-chill system). This
development meant that only a five day Monday to Friday working
would be required and the opportunities for earning acting up cook
allowances and earning Saturday/Sunday premiums would be
diminished. As a result of this the Union claimed two years
compensation for the loss of premium and acting up allowances for
the workers concerned. This was rejected by the Foundation on the
basis that the rationalisation was primarily due to economic
reasons. The matter was subsequently referred to the Rights
Commissioner Service for investigation and recommendation. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 14th November,
1989 and issued the following recommendation -
"I recommend that COPE make a once off payment of half the
annual loss of earnings for each employee, as follows:-
Worker A - #945.00
Worker B - #873.00
Worker C - #567.00
Worker D - #483.00
Worker E - #560.00
Worker F - #514.00
Worker G - #374.00
Worker H - #376.00
Worker I - #349.00
Worker J - #219.00
(the workers were referred to by name in the recommendation).
3. On 21st December, 1989 the Foundation appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 22nd February, 1990.
FOUNDATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Foundation has to finance its services through
allocations from government departments and its own fund
raising activity. Due to cutbacks in allocations it has been
necessary for the Foundation to reorganise its services, etc.
The central issue in this case is whether it is reasonable for
the Union to claim compensation when the opportunities have
diminished due to changes necessitated in the main by economic
considerations. These particular changes were made to enable
the Foundation to function within its financial resources.
Therefore these necessary changes enable essential services to
be maintained without any loss of permanent employment.
2. Since the Rights Commissioner hearing three of the workers
concerned have refused to work when requested on Sundays and
also to act up on cooking duties. Changes in Saturday/Sunday
rosters have not been uncommon in the public sector over the
last few years and there is little evidence of compensation
being made in such cases as they derived primarily from
economic considerations. The endorsement of the payment of
any compensation in this case would have serious repercussive
effects. The number of days (cooking) submitted by the Union
in respect of one of the workers is incorrect and therefore
reduces the yearly loss (details supplied to the Court). The
terms of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be
rejected.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. While the amount of the loss varies from one worker to
another the amount in each individual case is substantial
taking into account the fact that the basic salary is
presently only #154.18 to #164.34 per week (details supplied
to the Court). Prior to the rationalisation these workers
enjoyed a standard of living based on their premium earnings
and entered certain commitments on the basis of those
earnings. In addition, some of the workers involved are the
sole breadwinners in their families and the loss of premium
pay has not therefore just affected them. The workers
productivity has in fact increased as they are now preparing
meals for the seven day period over five days (Monday to
Friday). While the workers have suffered financial losses
they have given an increased commitment to management and have
done so without placing unnecessary obstacles in the path of
so called progress. The Foundation has and continues to make
significant savings by virtue of the Monday to Friday
operations and the elimination of weekend premium and acting
up allowance.
2. Management has argued that it is not aware of any
compensation paid in the public sector in recent times.
However, a cook-chill proposal which will eliminate weekend
working at St. Stephen's hospital has now actually been agreed
with a guarantee of twelve months compensation (details
supplied by the Court). In addition, the Court has recently
recommended compensation in a number of similar cases. The
Union was not entirely satisfied with the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation as our original claim was for
two years the actual loss. However, the Union was prepared to
accept the recommendation as it was some recognition of the
loss suffered and would enable the workers to adjust
economically. The very least the workers deserve is
compensation for the loss of earnings incurred.
DECISION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not find grounds for altering the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
23rd March, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.