Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90106 Case Number: LCR12880 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case and
in the light of the O.P.W.'s undertaking to reconsider the claim
if compensation is granted to workers in Coillte Teoranta for
similar losses arising from changing work practice, does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90106 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12880
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings on
behalf of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 1st January, 1989 responsibility for Dromore Wood, Ennis,
Co. Clare was transferred from Coillete Teoranta to the Office of
Public Works (O.P.W.). Three workers who were employed there were
also transferred from Coillete Teoranta to the O.P.W. The O.P.W.
decided to allow Dromore Wood, which is part of Ennis Forest, to
"return to nature" and wood production on a commercial basis
therefore ceased. The worker concerned who had over twenty years
experience in forestry work with Coillte Teoranta is one of the
three workers which were transferred to the O.P.W. The Union
claims that the worker was given an understanding that he would
not suffer any financial loss due to his transfer. However, the
Union claims that the worker has suffered considerable loss of
earnings and potential earnings and should be compensated by a
lump sum payment of #5,000. The O.P.W. rejected the claim and as
no agreement was reached local level the matter was referred on
7th December, 1989 to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 6th February, 1990
at which no agreement was reached. The matter was referred on
13th February, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which
was held in Limerick on 9th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's understanding was that he would not be at any
loss as a result of his transfer to the O.P.W. As the usual
activity of harvesting wood has ceased at Dromore Wood the
worker has suffered considerable loss of earnings as machine
work and related payments are no longer available to him.
2. When the worker was employed by Coillte Teoranta he had
greater potential earnings from the following related
payments:- drivers differential payment, bonus because of
machine output, timekeeping allowance, chainsaw allowance,
ploughing work, and overtime. He also had more opportunities
to travel to other forests and would thereby qualify for
travelling and subsistence payments. The worker has also lost
the opportunity to train on any new machinery or methods that
are or may be introduced by Coillte Teoranta.
3. The worker's take home pay is now #78 per week less than
it was in 1987. Given the loss of earnings and the potential
loss of earnings due to his transfer from Coillte Teoranta to
the O.P.W. the Union claims a lump sum compensation payment of
#5,000.
O.P.W.'s ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is based on the incorrect assumption
that if the worker was still employed by Coillte Teoranta he
would qualify for enhanced earnings at Ennis Forest. However
this work has been contracted out and was in the process of
being phased out while the worker was employed by Coillte
Teoranta. No special compensation was paid to the other
workers for loss of earnings arising from the loss of this
work.
2. At certain times of the year general operatives were
assigned to jobs where they had opportunities to enhance their
earnings. When the jobs were finished they retained the
enhanced earnings for 6 weeks after the cessation of the job.
This in effect amounted to compensation for loss of earnings,
and was understood to be such. If the other workers employed
by Coillte Teoranta establish grounds for compensation in
relation to the contracting out of work, other than the 6
weeks enhanced pay already referred to, and compensation is
paid to these workers, then the O.P.W. would look again at the
worker's claim on its merits and without commitment. It would
be inappropriate for the O.P.W. to set a precedent for claims
on a much larger scale in Coillte Teoranta.
3. The Union has failed to establish that the worker would
have enjoyed enhanced earnings if he had remained with Coillte
Teoranta. The worker concerned has retained a bonus payment,
amounting to #30 a week plus, on a personal basis since his
transfer from Coillte Teoranta. This bonus is not paid to
workers recruited by the O.P.W. The worker has suffered no
loss of earnings because of his transfer to the O.P.W. and the
Union's case for payment of compensation has not been
established.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case and
in the light of the O.P.W.'s undertaking to reconsider the claim
if compensation is granted to workers in Coillte Teoranta for
similar losses arising from changing work practice, does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
30th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.