Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92490 Case Number: AD92231 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SHAMROCK FOODS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 210/92 concerning retrospective payment of a forklift differential to a worker.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
fair in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92490 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD23192
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SHAMROCK FOODS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 210/92 concerning retrospective payment of
a forklift differential to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the food packaging and distribution
business and employs 96 people.
3. Up to 1988 the Company operated an internal promotion system
whereby any vacancy arising in the warehouse/production area was
filled by the person next in line on a seniority basis. There are
six forklift drivers plus one relief forklift driver employed in
the warehouse production area. Since 1988 appointments to
full-time and relief forklift driving vacancies have been on a
capability/suitability basis.
4. In September, 1988 following a training period and test the
worker concerned was appointed to the position of relief-forklift
driver. The worker was paid the daily forklift driver rate for
every day or part there off that that he drove the forklift.
5. In October, 1990 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of the
relief-forklift driver for the application of the forklift
driver's rate. The Company responded that it was favourably
disposed to the claim but that it would have to be part of an
overall agreement on other outstanding issues. The worker was put
on the full forklift driver's rate from June, 1991. The Union
claimed retrospection of the rate to September, 1988. The Company
rejected the claim.
6. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 8th July, 1992 and issued the
following recommendation dated 4th August, 1992:
"In the light of the above and in the context of the detailed
submissions made by each party, I believe that equity would
be satisfied by the forklift rate being made applicable from
June, 1990. I so recommend".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. The Union appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 20th November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker has carried out the duties of forklift driving
since 1988 and accordingly should be paid the appropriate rate
from that time.
2. The Rights Commissioner, by recommending retrospection to
June, 1990, recognised the legitimacy of the Union's claim but
failed to take into account two years of the period the worker
was on forklift driving duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The question of retrospection was never an issue during
the course of discussions on the Union's claim.
2. The worker was paid for all periods he operated the
forklift truck. The full forklift rate was applied to the
worker nine months before he was appointed to a full-time
position. Consequently the claim for retrospection is
unfounded.
3. The Company is prepared to accept, with some misgivings,
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation in this case in the
interests of good industrial relations.
DECISION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
fair in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
8th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.