Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92259 Case Number: AD92177 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH ROPES PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 24/92 concerning the payment of compensation to a worker arising from a rationalisation plan.
Recommendation:
The Court has given very careful consideration to issues raised
by this appeal.
It seems to the Court that the Company erred in the first
instance in not appealing the initial recommendation from which
the inference might reasonably be drawn that the Rights
Commissioner envisaged recommending monetary compensation.
On the other hand the Court takes the view that the Rights
Commissioner also erred in seeming to treat the loss in question
on the same basis as regular and rostered overtime.
The Court has further considered the argument put forward by the
Union based on the case that the change of work system deprived
the operatives of a source of potential overtime earnings and
has come to the conclusion that in the circumstances which
prevail in the firm where there occurs frequent and sudden
changes in demand for a variety of products which in turn
requires a great degree of adaptability from the workforce, the
Court would not have recommended compensation in the normal
course of events, as it cannot be said for certain that losses
incurred would be permanent.
This having been said, having regard to the expectations of the
sole worker now involved in the claim, the Court recommends that
in this instance he be paid the amount recommended.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92259 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD17792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH ROPES PLC
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 24/92 concerning the payment of
compensation to a worker arising from a rationalisation plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1990 the Company introduced weekend shifts in
its Extrusion Department as part of a rationalisation programme.
As a consequence weekend overtime working was curtailed. The
Union lodged a claim on behalf of 3 workers for compensation for
loss of overtime earnings. The Company rejected the claim.
3. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 11th April, 1991 and recommended
that the claim be held in abeyance for a 12 month period as he
considered that it was premature.
4. The claim was resubmitted on behalf of one worker as the
other two had small net gains over the 12 month period. On the
31st March, 1992 the Rights Commissioner issued the following:-
"S.T. 92/91 concerned a claim for loss for three
individuals. The Recommendation suggested that loss could
only be established after say one year and rejected the
claim for payment sought then by the Union.
The parties accepted this recommendation and the outurn
after a year showed that two claimants had marginal gains
of #60 and #110 respectively. The claimant had a loss of
#1,435.
The Union was incensed at the investigation to hear the
employer state grounds for the non-payment of this
compensation which were not really a feature of the
investigation of S.T. 92/91.
I cannot accept that there was no commitment whatever by
the Company to pay some compensation at the end of year
long exercise. If it did not intend to meet the demands
which the exercise might throw up as real loss it should
have appealed S.T. 92/91 rather than embark on what the
Union now describes as a charade.
Furthermore the Company submission in S.T. 92/91 gave net
losses of #465, #631 and #660 respectively for the three
claimants based on a 26 week period. The first two losses
have been turned into a nett gain and the claimants #660
loss is now #1,435.
I recommend that the claim succeeds. The claimant should
be paid 50% of his loss now. If he still continues in a
loss making situation this year he should receive the
residual amount (#700) or such lesser amount as emerges."
5. The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
5th June, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company does not guarantee overtime to any of its
employees. Overtime working is determined by market
demands.
2. Weekend shift working was introduced in order to
re-deploy people from another section who otherwise would
have lost their jobs (details supplied to the Court).
3. Concession of the claim would have repercussive
effects throughout the plant.
4. The Company never conceded the principle of paying
compensation in respect of loss of overtime earnings in
this instance.
5. Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 92/91
involved no determination on the question of principle.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Following the issue of recommendation No. S.T. 92/91
both parties adopted a "wait and see" policy in order to
quantify the losses.
2. The Company has reneged on the process fully and
voluntarily initiated by both sides and the Court is asked
to reject the Company's appeal and uphold the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to issues raised
by this appeal.
It seems to the Court that the Company erred in the first
instance in not appealing the initial recommendation from which
the inference might reasonably be drawn that the Rights
Commissioner envisaged recommending monetary compensation.
On the other hand the Court takes the view that the Rights
Commissioner also erred in seeming to treat the loss in question
on the same basis as regular and rostered overtime.
The Court has further considered the argument put forward by the
Union based on the case that the change of work system deprived
the operatives of a source of potential overtime earnings and
has come to the conclusion that in the circumstances which
prevail in the firm where there occurs frequent and sudden
changes in demand for a variety of products which in turn
requires a great degree of adaptability from the workforce, the
Court would not have recommended compensation in the normal
course of events, as it cannot be said for certain that losses
incurred would be permanent.
This having been said, having regard to the expectations of the
sole worker now involved in the claim, the Court recommends that
in this instance he be paid the amount recommended.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
29th June, 1992 _____________________
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman