Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93128 Case Number: AD9323 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BWG FOODS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC461/92 regarding alleged unfair treatment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions presented by the parties,
the Court does not find grounds to justify the alteration of the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. Accordingly the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93128 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2393
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BWG FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC461/92 regarding alleged unfair treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The workers are employed at the Company's warehouse in
Walkinstown. In January, 1990 a new Distribution Manager was
employed and he brought about many changes in the warehouse
and distribution area of the Company. As part of these
changes one worker was re-deployed from Transport Manager to
Warehouse Operative performing cleaning and hygiene duties,
and the other worker was offered early retirement, which he
rejected.
2. Both workers claim that because of differences they had
with the Distribution Manager they were deliberately
overlooked for overtime during the period July, 1990 to mid
1992. The Company denies the allegation. The matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on
the 22nd January, 1993. The Rights Commissioner in his
Recommendation (BC461/92) found:-
"(1) The balance of probability leads me to the view
that worker (A) was offered overtime during the
period in question but declined to do so since he
was not satisfied with the overtime rate
applicable.
(2) With regard to worker (B) I am satisfied that the
agreement reached between the parties in mid 1992
concerning the extension of overtime opportunity
to him does reflect justice and fairness and
indeed a degree of generosity on the Company's
part."
(The worker's names were mentioned in the recommendation)
3. On this basis the Rights Commissioner found no grounds
for the claim. The workers rejected this recommendation and
appealed the case to the Labour Court on the 11th February,
1993. The Labour Court investigated the dispute on the 5th
April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers lost out on overtime due to their
differences with the Distribution Manager.
2. Both workers worked regular overtime prior to the
appointment of the new Manager.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Offers of overtime were consistently rejected and
refused.
2. For one of the workers there is no overtime work for
which he is suited and therefore he is rarely asked to work
overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions presented by the parties,
the Court does not find grounds to justify the alteration of the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. Accordingly the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th April, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./U.S. ____________________________________
Chairman