Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92284 Case Number: AD92210 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 56/92.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing the Court does not find grounds
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court therefore decides that the recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92284 DECISION NO. AD21092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 56/92.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was in receipt of a coal allowance
between 1977-1983. This allowance was paid to workers who spent
part of their working day in the coal-area of the plant. The
allowance paid to the worker was 4% and was consolidated into his
basic pay. In 1983, the Company closed the old plant and
introduced a new-type operation. Compensation was paid to workers
in respect of loss of shift premium and overtime earnings. A
number of workers including the worker concerned lost the coal
allowance. Compensation was not paid. In 1990 the Union
submitted a claim on behalf of the worker for the restoration of
the allowance. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. In Paragraph
2 of his findings the Rights Commisioner found that the worker did
not receive equal treatment with his colleagues in relation to the
buy-out of the coal allowance element in the shift premium buy-out
in 1983. On the 9th April, 1992 the Rights Commissioner issued
his recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union's claim for the restoration of
the coal allowance for this member fails. However, I
recommend that he receives #300 in full and final settlement
of all claims based on my findings at 2 above".
On the 24th April, 1992, the Union 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 in Limerick on the 29th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation because it did not address the main issues of
the restoration of the coal allowance and the calculation of
the coal allowance for pension purposes. The worker concerned
was employed on day work at the old plant and the coal
allowance was part of his basic pay. When it was discontinued
he received no compensation. He has lost the coal allowance
and there is a reduction in his pension entitlements.
2. Both day workers and shift workers received the coal
allowance. When the old kiln department closed down, some
workers opted for voluntary redundancy and some came off shift
work. Both categories were compensated for loss of the coal
allowance. The loss of the allowance only came to light in
1991, when the question of coal allowance for pension purposes
was queried by the Union on behalf of another worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the old plant closed in 1983 the number of workers
involved with coal was diminished significantly and many
workers lost their fixed allowances. No compensation was paid
for this loss. The transfer from the old plant to the new
area was the subject of a Labour Court Recommendation which
covered "disturbance", loss of overtime and shift earnings.
The issue of coal allowance did not arise nor was it the
subject of a claim by any of the unions in the Company.
Compensation was paid on the shift element of total salary
including coal allowance.
2. The claim is being made nine years after agreement was
concluded on the transfer package. If conceded it could
result in similar claims from approximately twenty other
workers.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing the Court does not find grounds
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court therefore decides that the recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th October, 1992 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman