Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90452 Case Number: LCR13015 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JOHNSON & JOHNSON (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union concerning:- (a) management's obligation to use the Labour Court, (b) compensation for loss of staff sales facility. (c) compensation for loss of earnings for the transport manager.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
submissions made at a hearing on the 12th August, 1988 which
resulted in the issue of AD5188 the Court is satisfied that the
subject matter of the claim has been dealt with and accordingly
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90452 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13015
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: JOHNSON & JOHNSON (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union concerning:-
(a) management's obligation to use the Labour Court,
(b) compensation for loss of staff sales facility.
(c) compensation for loss of earnings for the transport
manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988 the Labour Court heard an appeal against a Rights
Commissioner's recommendation concerning compensation for loss of
overtime earnings for the transport manager whose hours of
attendance were being altered and whose overtime was being
reduced. The Court's decision was as follows:-
"In this case the Company has appealed a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation on the grounds that compensation for loss of
overtime earnings is not justified in the circumstances of
this case. It is noted by the Court that the following facts
are not in dispute:-
(a) The worker did work a considerable amount of overtime.
(b) The worker was paid for this overtime even though there
was no obligation on the Company to do so.
(c) The Company now wishes to contain the amount of overtime
within a budget limit of #4,500 in 1988 applicable to the
worker.
(d) The Company acknowledges that some overtime will be
required even though the objective is to ultimately
eliminate it.
The Court notes that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
that the worker work the revised hours required by the Company
has now been accepted by the Union. The Court is satisfied
that as a result of the revised hours, the worker will suffer
a considerable loss of earnings, and takes the view that he
should receive some compensation for that loss.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the Company's appeal. On the
basis of the projected loss of overtime, considered in the
context of earnings over the past four years, the Court
assesses the amount of compensation as #2,000. The Court so
decides."
(AD5188 of 24th August, 1988 refers).
3. In December 1989 the Company removed from the transport
manager the function of organising and picking staff sales, in
order to limit his overtime to seven hours per month. The staff
sales scheme did not operate for the first half of 1990 as the
Union requested the workers not to co-operate in an alternative
system for distributing monthly sales. On 11th June, 1990 the
Union wrote to the Court requesting assistance in a dispute
relating to: management's obligation to use the normal procedures
up to and including the Labour Court; management imposing
unilateral changes thereby depriving staff of the staff sales
facility for which the workers should be compensated, and;
compensation for loss of earnings for the transport manager. A
Labour Court conciliation conference was held on 18th June, 1990
at which no progress was made. The Company was not prepared to
refer the matter to the Labour Court as its position is that no
further case for compensation exists. On 20th July, 1990 the
Union referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of
the Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th August,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The fact that the Union had to invoke Section 20 of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to air these problems is a
reflection on the Company's desire to be both judge and jury
at the same time. The first and most important issue is
whether the Company has an obligation to use the normal
procedures up to and including the Labour Court itself, to
resolve problems rather than attempt to unilaterally impose
change. In the past when the Union placed a claim the Company
would oblige the Union to negotiate until every effort in that
area had been exhausted and then, failing agreement, the Union
would have to take its case to a third party. There was no
reason why the Company could not try to negotiate with the
Union first to make the change it desires, and failing that,
to use the full facilities of the Court to get an opinion on
what was proposed. Section VII of the Programme for National
Recovery (PNR) states that appropriate existing institutions
will be used in relation to issues that arise. As a party to
that agreement it is clear that the Company has attempted to
evade its commitment by not agreeing to the referral of these
issues to a full Court hearing.
2. The second issue to be decided upon is whether the Company
was wrong or not to impose the change without agreement and to
deprive the staff for a period of the use of the sales
facility which they enjoyed up to the time it was taken away
from them. This facility was withdrawn by the Company in
pursuit of a dispute with one member but which was injurious
to the rest of the staff, therefore, the Company should
compensate the workers for their loss. The third issue is
that when the Company, without consultation or agreement
unilaterally took away work which was proper to the transport
manager and which he had been doing for ten years, thereby
reducing the worker's income, then the Company should be
liable for that loss and should compensate the worker for it.
The Union is not asking the Court to decide on any figure, but
that the principle of compensation for loss should be upheld.
The Company should deal fairly with its workforce and if it
wishes to alter working conditions it should consult and
agree such alterations with the workers' representatives and
failing agreement, the Company should use the facilities
established by the State.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is opposed to paying overtime to the worker
concerned (i.e. the transport manager) at his management level
within the organisation and has expressed its determination to
reduce the overtime exposure as any opportunity arises. All
the relevant arguments are contained in the submissions which
the Company made to the Rights Commissioner's hearing and the
appeal hearing in 1988 (details supplied to the Court). The
Company has stated its intention of capping the worker's
overtime and reducing it progressively in the future. The
Court in AD5188 awarded the worker a sum of #2,000 in
compensation for the "projected loss of overtime considered in
the context of earnings over the past four years." In late
1989, the Company set a formal limit to the amount of overtime
which it was prepared to sanction in any month and at the end
of December, 1989 at the Company's direction the worker
concerned ceased organising and picking staff sales. The
objective of this was to confine the worker's overtime to a
limit of seven worked overtime hours per month as the removal
of the staff sales function would eliminate at least six hours
additional overtime and move towards the ultimate objective of
eliminating overtime altogether.
5. 2. The Company has refused all claims for compensation due to
the removal of the staff sales overtime, as this was part of
the Company's overall programme of reducing the overtime
situation attaching to the transport manager's position. The
Company's intentions were clearly stated in the original
submissions in 1988. The compensation which was awarded in
1988 was in respect of the full statement of actions and
intentions declared at that time. The Company has remained
consistent with its intentions and having taken the step of
further reducing the overtime available expects compliance
with its decision without further argument or claim for
compensation, particularly at the level concerned. The
position which the Company is trying to achieve is one where
the transport manager will not collect any further overtime
payments but will act like any other manager in the Company.
In the normal course of events the Company would be a party to
a joint referral to the Labour Court. However, on this
occasion the Company refused a joint referral due to its
disapproval of the worker's attitude to the whole overtime
issue and particularly of his seeking compensation in relation
to this reduction.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
submissions made at a hearing on the 12th August, 1988 which
resulted in the issue of AD5188 the Court is satisfied that the
subject matter of the claim has been dealt with and accordingly
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
6th September,1990.
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.