Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9236 Case Number: AD92133 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GILBEYS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 360/91 concerning alleged monies owed to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
decides that the Company's appeal should be upheld.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9236 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD13392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GILBEYS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation B.C. 360/91 concerning alleged monies owed to a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed on security duties at the
Company's Naas Road plant. On the 8th and 9th January, 1991 he
was unable to attend work (7.30 p.m. to 7.30 a.m.) due to
extremely hazardous weather conditions. He lost two days wages as
a result. The Union, on the worker's behalf claimed payment for
the two days. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 3rd
December, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:
"In the context of the above it is clear that such payments
are totally within the discretion of the Management. However
in the unique circumstances referred to and on the
understanding that no precedent is hereby created I hereby
recommend that the Company as a humane gesture should pay to
the worker a sum equivalent to what was lost by him due to
his unfortunate inability to attend work on the two days in
question".
On the 14th January, 1992 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 the 12th
January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Subsequent to the Company's decision to refuse payment to
the worker concerned it transpired that other workers (in the
white collar section) who were unable to attend work on one or
both of these days were reimbursed by the Company. The Union
has consistently argued in relation to the claim for equity in
the Company's discretionary decisions. No precedence was
being sought and this commitment was recognised and
established by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The Company's reference to the types of contract of the
worker concerned and other employees is no justification for
inequity in management decisions. The Union rejects the
Company's suggestion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation would undermine the whole concept of hourly pay
status. The overall conditions of employment for Union
members would remain intact and agreements would be honoured.
This claim arose as a result of exceptional circumstances,
outside the control of the worker concerned. The Company in
dealing with blue collar/industrial S.I.P.T.U. membership,
should be seen to act in an equitable manner in its
discretionary decisions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant is employed on an hourly paid contract. The
S.I.P.T.U./Company agreement provides for employees to be paid
on an hourly basis. The case quoted by the Union in support
of the claim is not party to this agreement. The Rights
Commissioner confirmed this in his findings when he stated.
(i) "I am satisfied that there are two separate types of
agreements within the Company - one relating to
hourly paid employees - the other relating to staff
employees".
(ii)"These agreements are not related to each other".
No hourly paid member of S.I.P.T.U., absent due to bad
weather, was paid on this or on any other occasion.
2. Concession of the claim could lead to immediate
consequential claims by other members of the Union who lost
time due to the bad weather conditions and who were not paid
during their absences. The Company did not pay hourly paid
workers from other Unions who operate in the plant, for time
lost due to inclement weather. The Rights Commissioner
recognised that "such payments are totally within the
discretion of Management".
3. The concept of hourly paid status and its operation as a
system of remuneration would be totally undermined by
concession of the claim. Management considers that it is
totally unacceptable to "set precedent" that absence due to
bad weather should be paid for.
4. The Company appreciates that the Rights Commissioner
attempted to deal with this claim as an exception. The
Company is convinced that there is no basis for departing from
well established custom and practice irrespective of how it is
restricted. The Company asks the Court to set aside the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
decides that the Company's appeal should be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
26th February, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.