Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92416 Case Number: AD92203 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD FOODS PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 225/92 concerning the position of a worker on a seniority list.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner based his decision
on the best available evidence as to the seniority of the worker
involved. The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation
should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92416 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD20392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD FOODS PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T.
225/92 concerning the position of a worker on a seniority list.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is an international food company with
operations in Ireland, the U.K. and U.S.A. At the Dungarvan
processing centre 225 workers are employed. A rationalisation
programme was agreed and implemented in the Quality Control
Section on 1st August, 1992. The rationalisation resulted in
staff reductions and redeployment (details supplied). During
negotiations a seniority list was compiled by the Company and
on its completion queries were received from 8 workers.
2. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 12th
May and 22nd May, 1992. The recommendation as set out below
for the worker conerned issued on 17th June, 1992.
*"RECOMMENDATION
The claimant wishes to be placed No. 10 on the revised
list (ahead of worker 11). He claims he was in QA when
No. 10 was in the spray lab. States he got a date
4/3/77 from the manager. The Company are adamant that
he was a casual worker at the relevant time and its
records show that he started on the 31/3/76 was "left
off" in September, 1976. Recommenced on the 4/3/77
until the 4/11/77 when he was again "left off". He
recommenced work on the 10/1/78.
I have in the circumstances of the Company's records to
recommend that the claimant is properly placed at No. 14
on the recommended list below.
I further generally recommend that the final list set
out below should be accepted by all".
(The workers and manager were named in the
recommendation).
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to
the Labour Court by the Union by letter dated 13th July, 1992.
The Labour Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 26th August,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are 2 types of seniority in the Company.
(i) Last in first out for redundancy purposes.
(ii) Seniority in the Section.
The worker has greater seniority in the Section than the 3
workers placed before him by the Rights Commissioner. The
worker commenced work on a temporary basis in the Quality
Control Section on 31st March, 1976. He secured a permanent
position on 10th January, 1978.
2. The Rights Commissioner placed the worker on the seniority
list at No. 14. The workers placed at numbers 11, 12 and 13
joined the Quality Control Section from other sections
subsequent to the worker's arrival in the section. The other
areas are separate sections for the purposes of seniority.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The correct starting date for the worker in the laboratory
section is 10th January, 1978 and it was on this date that he
received the laboratory rate for the first time. There is an
agreement with the Union that service in any area only
commences from the date of permanent employment.
2. The issue in dispute is quality control work and this can
be done by anyone in the organisation. It has been
established that milk intake is part of quality control work
and the laboratory rate is paid for this. It is clear from
the Company's records that the other workers named have
legitimate claims which were recognised by the Rights
Commissioner for a higher placing on the seniority list.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner based his decision
on the best available evidence as to the seniority of the worker
involved. The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation
should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
--------------
30th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.