Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91643 Case Number: AD92232 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD REGIONAL AIRPORT PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 359/91 concerning a claim for pay differential by a worker.
Recommendation:
In view of my findings at (1) above I recommend that the
company meets the claim in full as presented by the
Union in good faith. Disclaiming legitimate agreements
entered into by properly authorised Managers is not
conducive to good Industrial Relations.
5. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by
the Company to the Labour Court by letter dated 26th November,
1991 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court investigation took place in New Ross on
19th November, 1992 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that he was promised the position of
Security Officer by a previous Manager of the Company and
because the position failed to materialise he feels he should
be compensated. The Company has been unable to establish that
the worker was offered the Security Officer post and finds it
unlikely that he would be offered such a position (details
supplied). There never has been any position of Chief
Security Officer to offer to the worker. Regardless of
whether an offer was made, the position failed to materialise
and the worker is not entitled to compensation.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation seems to indicate
his misunderstanding of the facts of the case. The dispute
was not the subject of a conciliation conference or intensive
negotiations. No proposal was ever made in relation to the
issue and no offer was made. The Company's financial and
trading difficulties make concession of the claim impossible
(details supplied).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union made its claim on behalf of the worker for
restoration to his former position as Operations Officer in
February, 1990. The claim has been outstanding for some time.
The Manager of the Company in the presence of another worker
offered the worker the position of Chief Security Officer.
This was accepted by the worker and he decided not to pursue
his claim for restoration to the position of Operations
Officer. The offer was confirmed by the then Manager at a
meeting of 22nd January, 1991 (details supplied).
2. The worker has suffered a loss of £1,768 as a result of
the decision not to pursue his claim for reinstatement to his
former position. The decision to accept the Company's offer
at face value has led to the worker being penalised. The
Company's delay in dealing with the matter has worsened the
worker's financial position. The worker is willing to accept
the terms of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
takes the view that in the circumstances the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91643 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD23292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD REGIONAL AIRPORT PLC
(REPRESENTED BY BRIAN FLYNN AND ASSOCIATES)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T.
359/91 concerning a claim for pay differential by a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company as an Operations
Officer. He was demoted to the position of Ground Staff due
to an accident at work (details supplied) after serving 3
weeks in the grade. It was agreed that the worker's status
would be reviewed. The review period was formalised during
negotiations on other issues on 11th March, 1990. The review
was to take place on 30th September, 1990.
2. Other issues took precedence (details supplied) and the
review of the worker's position did not take place until 22nd
January, 1991. The worker claims that pror to the review the
then Manager of the Company, offered him the position of Chief
Security Officer at the new Airport which was being
constructed. The rate for the position of Security Officer
attracted a higher rate than that of Operations Officer. The
worker accepted the offer and was satisfied to remain in the
Ground Staff grade until the building work was completed.
3. The worker was made redundant by the Company in September,
1991. The Union claimed £1,768 compensation on the worker's
behalf. This was calculated based on the difference in the
worker's wages as Ground Staff and the grade of Operations
Officer from the time of the agreed review in September, 1990
to the time when the worker was made redundant. The Company
denied that any offer of the position of Chief Security
Officer was made. It was agreed to refer the claim to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
4. A Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 23rd
October, 1991. The following findings and recommendation
issued on 18th November, 1991.
"FINDINGS
1. I am satisfied that the Union has a valid agreement
with the Company which was negotiated with a previous
Manager who had full authority at that time to so
negotiate.
2. The Company representatives cannot confirm that such
an agreement was entered into by the previous Manager.
The Company further claims that irrespective of any such
promise they cannot now meet the commitment due to the
financial state of the Company.
3. This matter has been the subject of extensive
negotiations under the L.R.C. and the parties could not
reach a settlement. The I.R.O. involved had spent many
long hours and his final proposal of a compromise
payment of £1,500 had been rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of my findings at (1) above I recommend that the
company meets the claim in full as presented by the
Union in good faith. Disclaiming legitimate agreements
entered into by properly authorised Managers is not
conducive to good Industrial Relations.
5. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by
the Company to the Labour Court by letter dated 26th November,
1991 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court investigation took place in New Ross on
19th November, 1992 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that he was promised the position of
Security Officer by a previous Manager of the Company and
because the position failed to materialise he feels he should
be compensated. The Company has been unable to establish that
the worker was offered the Security Officer post and finds it
unlikely that he would be offered such a position (details
supplied). There never has been any position of Chief
Security Officer to offer to the worker. Regardless of
whether an offer was made, the position failed to materialise
and the worker is not entitled to compensation.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation seems to indicate
his misunderstanding of the facts of the case. The dispute
was not the subject of a conciliation conference or intensive
negotiations. No proposal was ever made in relation to the
issue and no offer was made. The Company's financial and
trading difficulties make concession of the claim impossible
(details supplied).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union made its claim on behalf of the worker for
restoration to his former position as Operations Officer in
February, 1990. The claim has been outstanding for some time.
The Manager of the Company in the presence of another worker
offered the worker the position of Chief Security Officer.
This was accepted by the worker and he decided not to pursue
his claim for restoration to the position of Operations
Officer. The offer was confirmed by the then Manager at a
meeting of 22nd January, 1991 (details supplied).
2. The worker has suffered a loss of £1,768 as a result of
the decision not to pursue his claim for reinstatement to his
former position. The decision to accept the Company's offer
at face value has led to the worker being penalised. The
Company's delay in dealing with the matter has worsened the
worker's financial position. The worker is willing to accept
the terms of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
takes the view that in the circumstances the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
8th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.