Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93601 Case Number: LCR14303 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for the loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the allowance was introduced to compensate for work
related to Customs Clearance and delay at the Border.
Subsequent to the abolition of Customs posts this does not now
arise and consequently there is no basis for payment of the
allowance. The Company is, therefore, justified in withdrawing
the allowance. As the removal of Custom posts was a decision
outside the control of the Company and arose from political and
legal decisions, the Court does not recommend concession of the
claim for compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93601 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14303
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for the loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a payment system based on an
allowed-hours measurement. This involves a basic rate plus
incentive earnings for performance within the allowed
standard hours. Each element of a worker's work activity is
allocated time. The Union has lodged a claim for
compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 16 drivers.
The claim arises from ending of an allowed-hours payment of
2.06 hours, applied in respect of each scheduled trip to
Northern Ireland, to cover delays at Customs. This ceased
when Customs Clearance terminated under EC legislation in
December, 1992.
2. The Union's claim for compensation was rejected by the
Company at local level and it was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. No progress was made at a conciliation
conference held on 8th September, 1993. The claim was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 27th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of the Company's unilateral withdrawal of
the payment for Customs Clearance, the workers are forced to
suffer a loss of up to #47 per week. Allowed hours provide a
major part of the workers' earnings. They are mutually
agreed following work study. It is unacceptable for the
workers to be at such a significant loss without
compensation.
2. The Union accepts that the customs arrangements have
changed. It will not accept the reduction of the workers'
earnings without any attempt to negotiate an alternative.
The customs standard was implemented by agreement and can
only be changed by agreement. This is provided for in the
Company/Union Agreement (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Customs Clearance allowance was measured for an
inconvenience that constituted part of a trip for a driver.
This inconvenience was governed by Government regulations and
was therefore outside the control of the Company. The
Company did make the payments while the inconvenience
affected the trip to Northern Ireland. It was discontinued
when Customs Clearance was discontinued by virtue of EC
regulations.
2. The Union has no valid case for its claim as legislative
change cannot constitute a justifiable case for compensation.
The Company cannot concede the Union's claim on either market
or competitive grounds. In addition, it is in conflict with
Clause 5 of the PESP as it clearly is a cost-increasing
claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the allowance was introduced to compensate for work
related to Customs Clearance and delay at the Border.
Subsequent to the abolition of Customs posts this does not now
arise and consequently there is no basis for payment of the
allowance. The Company is, therefore, justified in withdrawing
the allowance. As the removal of Custom posts was a decision
outside the control of the Company and arose from political and
legal decisions, the Court does not recommend concession of the
claim for compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M.
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.