Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91349 Case Number: AD9176 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 136/91 concerning the payment of a half hour's pay to workers whom the Company allege failed to honour an agreement to work up time paid in advance.
Recommendation:
8. The agreement for time off to view the Ireland/England game
was an appropriate arrangement for a sporting encounter of great
National interest. It was a loose arrangement between a Manager
and his staff and accordingly both parties were honour bound to
adhere to it with total fairness and the minimum of formality.
The Managers instant action when he considered that the bargain
was being ignored was understandable although perhaps
precipitative. However, he displayed full fairness by
subsequently accepting the word of each worker as to whether or
not he (the worker) had met the terms of the Agreement.
In the circumstances the Court does not regard, as honourable, the
stance taken by the workers involved in this case in refusing to
declare their position and invoking procedures in relation to the
particular agreement; nor was it helpful to general industrial
relations.
Despite, or perhaps because, of these views the Court believes
that longer term considerations are better served by paying the
claimants the half-hour involved.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91349 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 136/91 concerning the payment of a half
hour's pay to workers whom the Company allege failed to honour an
agreement to work up time paid in advance.
BACKGROUND:
2. During the present European Cup campaign agreement was reached
between the Company and the workers in the Body Maintenance Shop
(B.M.S.) that they could have the afternoon of the 14th November,
1990 off to watch a match. In return the workers would maintain
productivity by working a half hour of their lunch break for seven
days. Two half hours were worked prior to the match and the
remaining time was to be worked after the match.
3. At 1.40 p.m. on Thursday 22nd November, 1990 (25 minutes after
the agreed starting time for that day) the works manager entered
the body shop and formed the impression that nobody was working.
On establishing that the workers should be working as per the
agreement he arranged that a half hour's pay be deducted.
Following representations from the shop stewards, the foreman
questioned the workers individually to ascertain if they were
working. The Manager accepted that all but three were working.
One half hour's pay was deducted from these workers.
4. The Unions referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 7th June, 1991 and on 27th June, 1991
he issued the following findings;
"FINDINGS
1. I am satisfied that the Company acted in good faith in
making the arrangement to advance time off with pay.
2. It is my experience that such agreements tend to be
treated in a light hearted manner subsequently by the
beneficiaries. There is therefore a great need for the
agreement to be closely supervised as the increments of pay
back time were in small periods of half hour per day.
3. I am not satisfied that Management took enough steps to
ensure that each day's half hour was worked up, particularly
as the week wore on.
4. The decision to stop the half hour's pay was arbitrary in
the extreme and selective to boot. In my view the Management
was still obliged to act according to the Disciplinary Code.
The fact that it was an ad-hoc arrangement which was
allegedly breached did not justify the action taken against
the claimants."
and he recommended
"As it has not been established to my satisfaction that the
claimants had not worked the half hour I must give them the
benefit of the considerable doubt which exists. I therefore
recommend payment to them as claimed."
5. The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 22nd August, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Management and the workers entered into an informal
agreement and while it was a loose arrangement it should be
honoured by both sides.
2. All the workers in the body shop were afforded an
opportunity of showing that they were working simply by
informing the foreman accordingly. The workers involved in
this claim have not shown that they were working at the time
in question and consequently the Company is justified in
deducting their wages. The Court is asked to uphold the
Company's appeal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. No penalty should have been imposed on any of the workers
without firstly going through the disciplinary procedure. If
Management took the view that some workers were not carrying
out their duties in a satisfactory manner they should have
charged them accordingly and processed the matter through the
agreed procedures and not acted by arbitrarily deducting a
half hour's pay from the workers.
DECISION:
8. The agreement for time off to view the Ireland/England game
was an appropriate arrangement for a sporting encounter of great
National interest. It was a loose arrangement between a Manager
and his staff and accordingly both parties were honour bound to
adhere to it with total fairness and the minimum of formality.
The Managers instant action when he considered that the bargain
was being ignored was understandable although perhaps
precipitative. However, he displayed full fairness by
subsequently accepting the word of each worker as to whether or
not he (the worker) had met the terms of the Agreement.
In the circumstances the Court does not regard, as honourable, the
stance taken by the workers involved in this case in refusing to
declare their position and invoking procedures in relation to the
particular agreement; nor was it helpful to general industrial
relations.
Despite, or perhaps because, of these views the Court believes
that longer term considerations are better served by paying the
claimants the half-hour involved.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
29th August, 1991 Chairman.
M.D./J.C.