Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92695 Case Number: AD92238 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: B & I LINE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company and Union against Rights Commissioner Recommendation (C.W. 289/92) concerning compensation for loss of earnings due to the exclusion from a casual dockers list.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and arguments put forward by
the parties at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds to
alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly the Court does not uphold the appeal of either party
and decides that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation stand.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92695 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD23892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: B & I LINE LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company and Union against Rights Commissioner
Recommendation (C.W. 289/92) concerning compensation for loss of
earnings due to the exclusion from a casual dockers list.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company decided in 1989 to reduce the number of
dockers on the casual dockers list to 14. This became
effective from October, 1989 and the Union, on behalf of the
worker, challenged his exclusion from the list.
2. The Company rejected the claim contending that the
criteria used for selection was age and health. The matter
was referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the
dispute on the 5th March, 1990 and issued his recommendation
on the 12th march, 1990:-
"I recommend, subject to a satisfactory medical
clearance, that the worker be included on the new 'B'
list. If there is a conflict between the opinions of
the worker's doctor and that of the Company then an
agreed third medical opinion is sought".
3. The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court ("Court") and the Court
investigated the matter on the 21st May, 1991. The Court
issued its decision (AD4691) on the 6th June, 1991 upholding
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
4. On the 4th December, 1991 a consultant specialist
confirmed that the worker was fit for docker duties and on the
24th January, 1992 the worker was included on the casual
dockers list.
5. On the 7th July, 1992 the Union wrote to the Company
claiming loss of earnings for the worker for the period
October, 1989 to January, 1992. The Company rejected this
claim and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the matter on the 15th
October, 1992 and issued his recommendation on the 28th
October, 1992:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts the sum of #2,000 in settlement of this
dispute".
The Company and Union appealed this recommendation to the
Labour Court on the 11th November, 1992 and the 25th November,
1992 respectively and the Court investigated the matter on the
7th December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were no reasonable grounds for refusing to place
the worker on the casual dockers list.
2. The worker's own doctor passed him fit for work in 1989
and the consultant specialist confirmed his fitness for work
in December, 1991.
3. The Rights Commissioner found that the claim had merit
insofar as procedures were unduly delayed.
4. Of the 14 people selected only 2 were outside the top 14
on the seniority list.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The selection process in 1989 reduced the number of
casual dockers to 14 on the basis of interview and assessment.
2. The worker was certified unfit for work.
3. There was no undue delay in procedures.
4. The worker was certified fit for work on 4th December,
1991 and, therefore, there is no entitlement to pay prior to
that date.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions and arguments put forward by
the parties at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds to
alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly the Court does not uphold the appeal of either party
and decides that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
5th January, 1993 -----------------
P.O'C/U.S. Chairman