Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9258 Case Number: AD92167 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BROOKS HANLEY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 244/91.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all of the views put forward by the
parties. It is clear to the Court that there is the ingredient of
a dispute in the selection of personnel when transfer is required
from the yard to the mill. The Court notes that the Company have
agreement on flexibility but would suggest this flexibility
liability by staff is subject to equitable distribution of the
liability among all the yard staff.
The Court takes the view that if confrontation is to be avoided in
the future agreement should be reached acceptable to the staff
concerned on transfers. Not withstanding the above the dispute
should have been resolved through the agreed procedures without
recourse to industrial action. In all the circumstances the Court
finds no grounds for payment of loss of earnings. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9258 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD16792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BROOKS HANLEY LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 244/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed by the Company
as a yard-man at its Sligo plant. On the 15th May, 1991 a dispute
concerning the temporary transfer of the worker occurred which
resulted in a work stoppage. The industrial action lasted 2½
days. The Union claimed payment on behalf of the workers involved
for the period of the work stoppage. The Company rejected the
claim. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioners for
investigation on the 29th October, 1991. On the 19th December,
1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"There was some confusion on the first day of this unfortunate
stoppage which was caused by a personality clash and some
were working and others were not. Some were attending
meetings on the issue. All were treated the same by the
Company - all lost 2.5 days pay. This was hardly fair. On
the understanding that no such claim will be tabled in the
future and that this is the final occasion for the practice
begun by the Sligo Company in 1973, I will make an exception
to my usual policy of denying such payments by recommending
payment of 1.5 days pay to each claimant. The offer of the
loan should be dropped by the Company".
On the 22nd 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 in Sligo on the
12th May, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned voluntarily withdrew their labour
against the advice of the Union - the worker stoppage was
unofficial. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the
workers involved be paid for some of the time lost because of
the dispute but did not address the issues involved. Adequate
industrial relations machinery exists at local level for the
settlement of disputes. The workers concerned should have
continued working while the matter in dispute was handled by
the Union. All employees did not withdrew their labour.
Eighteen (18) workers remained at their positions.
2. It was stated at the Rights Commissioner's hearing that
payment was made to workers in similar situations which arose
in 1973, 1977, and 1979. The Union or the Company cannot
confirm this. The ownership of the Company changed in 1983
and it refused to pay workers who withdrew their labour. The
Company has made various payments to workers for agreements on
productivity. These agreements covered the issue of
flexibility. Workers are obliged to transfer from the yard to
the mill as required by the Company. The worker transferred
to the mill on previous occasions when requested by
Management. The industrial action which took place did not
result from a personality clash. The employee refused to
comply with an instruction/request to transfer from one area
to another.
3. The Company has accepted all previous Rights
Commissioner's recommendations. In this instance the Company
has a fundamental objection to this recommendation. The
Rights Commissioner recommended payment for time lost through
unofficial industrial action without reinforcing Management's
rights in the particular situation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not refuse to transfer. He queried the
reason for the transfer. He was verbally abused and told that
if he did not transfer he would be dismissed. This action was
seen by his co-workers as very high handed. Despite efforts
by the shop steward to have discussions with him the Manager
insisted on the transfer before any efforts could be made
avoid the dispute. The question of interchangeability
between yard work and mill work could be resolved if the
Company paid the differential between the pay of mill workers
and that of yard workers when they are employed in the mill.
Discussions must take place on this issue.
2. At discussions, prior to the workers going back to work,
the Company offered a loan of £40 to each worker. This offer
was refused by the Union. The Union is of the opinion that
the Company, in making the offer, accepted some responsibility
for the dispute.
3. It is the Union's understanding that the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for decision. The Company
had ample time to object to the Rights Commissioner's holding
such an investigation but did not do so. The Company has paid
workers for time lost during disputes in the past. It
happened in 1973, 1977 and 1979 and there is no reason why
they should not be paid having regard to the circumstances
surrounding the dispute.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered all of the views put forward by the
parties. It is clear to the Court that there is the ingredient of
a dispute in the selection of personnel when transfer is required
from the yard to the mill. The Court notes that the Company have
agreement on flexibility but would suggest this flexibility
liability by staff is subject to equitable distribution of the
liability among all the yard staff.
The Court takes the view that if confrontation is to be avoided in
the future agreement should be reached acceptable to the staff
concerned on transfers. Not withstanding the above the dispute
should have been resolved through the agreed procedures without
recourse to industrial action. In all the circumstances the Court
finds no grounds for payment of loss of earnings. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
9th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.