Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92553 Case Number: LCR13840 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH WAREHOUSING AND TRANSPORT LIMITED (I.W.T.) - and - A WORKER |
A dispute concerning alleged loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances which existed on the
closure of the Fashion Care Division, the Court considers that the
new employment contract offered to the claimant was fair and
reasonable. On the understanding that the Company will review her
salary in the light of the expected development of her job, the
Court recommends that the claimant accept the contract dated 17th
June, 1992.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92553 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13840
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH WAREHOUSING AND TRANSPORT LIMITED (I.W.T.)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning alleged loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in freight forwarding and employs
90 workers. The worker was employed by the Company in March
1988. From January, 1991, she worked with Fashion Care
Limited, a division of the Company involved in the
transportation of hanging garments. The worker was
responsible for operational activities, reporting to the
general manager of the division.
2. In April, 1992, the Company closed the Fashion Care
division as a result of losses and the general manager was
made redundant. The worker was retained in the Company and
transferred to new duties in the P&O containers division while
retaining the residual business of Fashion Care Limited. The
worker's salary was unchanged but a travel allowance of #1,000
per year was no longer paid to her by the Company.
3. The worker disputed the change in her conditions of
employment and signed a new contract on 17th June, 1992 under
protest. The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 27th October, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed in 1988 by I.W.T. Limited. She
has a wide range of experience within the Company (details
supplied). In all of her assignments, the worker received the
travel allowance as stated in her contract of employment
signed on 10th March, 1988.
2. The worker's most recent re-assignment was due to the
re-organisation of Fashion Care Limited.
On this occasion, the Company requested that the worker sign a
new contract of employment. The new contract changed the
worker's established conditions of employment as no provision
was made for the payment of the travel allowance. The worker
signed the contract under protest. It is unreasonable for the
Company to change the worker's conditions of employment as a
result of a transfer to new duties. In the case of a
transfer, there is no requirement for a new contract of
employment. If the Company had to change the worker's
conditions of employment, it should have been negotiated in
accordance with good industrial relations practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Fashion Care Limited was closed as a division in April,
1992. The worker was offered redundancy. As a special
measure, in view of the worker's service record, the Company
made an effort to secure another position for her. The
Company was unable to place the worker in a comparable
position. It was, however, able to merge functions and offer
the worker a new position. The new position could not support
her salary level. It was decided that the only change in her
conditions would be in relation to the travel allowance.
2. The worker accepted the position rather than the
redundancy settlement offered. It is not Company policy to
dismiss workers when market conditions change. No change was
proposed to the worker's salary even though the new position
created could not support her salary level. The Company
regrets that because of difficult market conditions it was
forced to make an amended offer. The worker's new position
will develop over time.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances which existed on the
closure of the Fashion Care Division, the Court considers that the
new employment contract offered to the claimant was fair and
reasonable. On the understanding that the Company will review her
salary in the light of the expected development of her job, the
Court recommends that the claimant accept the contract dated 17th
June, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
___________________
11th November, 1992. Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.