Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91553 Case Number: LCR13546 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KINGSPAN LIMITED - and - A WORKER;MR. BRENDAN HODGERS |
Claim by a worker for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and noting the size of the
loss of earnings the Court recommends the Company increase it's
offer of compensation to a sum of £2000 and that the claimant
accepts this sum in full settlement of his claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91553 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13546
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KINGSPAN LIMITED
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Mr. Brendan Hodgers)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in 1981.
At that time the Company installed a new machine to produce a
product called polyflex which is used in pipe insulation. The
worker was trained in the use of the machine and was employed as
a working supervisor/machine operator responsible for polyflex
production. In 1987 the Company decided to dispose of the
polyflex machine and the worker concerned was re-deployed
without any change in his rate of pay. In 1988 the Company
purchased another polyflex machine and the worker was again
deployed in the polyflex department to operate the machine with
others on shift work. In 1990 a further machine was installed
with production for both machines under the control of a
production director and a supervisor. In October, 1990 the
Company re-appraised responsibilities and rates of pay of all
workers in the polyflex department. The worker's rate of pay
was reduced by £55 per week approximately. The Company offered
a lump sum of £1250 to the worker as compensation for his loss
in earnings. The worker rejected the offer and is claiming
compensation of £2500. The worker referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Dundalk on 22nd
January, 1992. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be
bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has no record of misbehaviour of
any form and as a supervisor always acted very
responsibly. The Company's decision to reduce the worker's
earnings without prior discussion or notice has greatly
reduced his standard of living. He should receive the
maximum compensation available.
2. A colleague of the worker concerned suffered a £28 per
week reduction in pay in similar circumstances and received
compensation of a lump sum payment of £1,250. As the
worker's weekly loss in pay is twice his colleague's the
worker should receive at least twice as much compensation
as his colleague.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the installation of the polyflex machine in
1981 the worker concerned was responsible for production
and quality control. There were problems in relation to
product quality and the Company had to eventually dispose
of the machine in 1987. The worker was re-deployed to less
skilled work but retained the same rate of pay. Following
the purchase of machines in 1988 and 1990 the Company
re-appraised the performance and rates of pay of the
polyflex production staff. A number of operators were
affected by the re-appraisal including the worker whose
rate of pay was reduced in accordance with his
responsibilities which had been reduced since his initial
employment.
2. The Company has tried to treat the worker fairly and
offered him compensation in recognition of his loss in
earnings. The Company's offer of compensation which was
made to the worker on several occasions is reasonable in
the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and noting the size of the
loss of earnings the Court recommends the Company increase it's
offer of compensation to a sum of £2000 and that the claimant
accepts this sum in full settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
4th February, 1992.
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman