Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92407 Case Number: LCR13780 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HARP IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
is of the view that the Company did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances and that payment of wages as claimed would clearly
not be justified.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92407 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13780
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HARP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. On Saturday 22nd February, 1992 a worker, who is a
shop steward, refused to carry out an instruction from a
supervisor. The issue was the subject of disciplinary hearings
under the grievance and disputes procedures between 24th and 27th
February. On the 27th February the Company advised the worker
that payment for the Saturday was being withheld pending the
outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Following a meeting of
the Union membership, unofficial industrial action took place on
the 27th and 28th February. The worker was paid for the Saturday
and normal working resumed. Subsequently the Union submitted a
claim on behalf of the workers concerned for payment during the
period of the stoppage. The Union maintained that as the shop
steward had been paid, the workers should be re-imbursed for their
losses incurred in his defence. Management rejected the claim.
The unofficial industrial action continued from 2nd to 11th March,
1992. The issue was referred to a third party adjudicator who
recommended that the workers who took part in the stoppage should
not be paid. On the 30th June, 1992 the Union referred the issue
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 23rd
September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company by its action was in breach of the Payment of
Wages Act, 1991. The workers who supported the shop steward
acted legitimately in supporting that worker's rights under
the Act. The workers concerned should be compensated for time
lost during the stoppage on the 27th, 28th February and from
the 2nd to 11th March, 1992. The Union calculates that the
amount of wages owed to the workers is 68 hours' pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The unofficial action taken by the workers concerned was
not sanctioned or supported by the Union. To pay workers for
taking unofficial industrial action would present severe
difficulties for Management and Unions in trying to conduct
normal industrial relations in the future. The Company is not
aware of any previous occasion where workers were compensated
for participating in unofficial action.
2. The Company did not contravene the Payment of Wages Act,
1991 as the payment (to the worker for Saturday 22nd February)
was not deducted, only withheld pending the outcome of a
disciplinary hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
is of the view that the Company did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances and that payment of wages as claimed would clearly
not be justified.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________
5th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.