Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD931 Case Number: AD9311 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CALOR TEORANTA - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC449/92 concerning loss of income due to changes in conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I recommend that the worker accepts
his new assignment and he continues to co-operate with
Management in carrying out the duties assigned to him in
July, 1992. Both parties should monitor the mileage
undertaken by the worker in the course of this new assignment
and sit down together in September, 1993 to review matters.
Should the paid mileage travel by him in the period July,
1992 to September, 1993 fail to reach an average figure per
week of 300 miles then the matter may be referred back to me
for further consideration and recommendation.
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
The worker appealed against the Recommendation on the 22nd of
December, 1992. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 5th of
February, 1993.
WORKER'S/UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker was appointed to the position of Credit
Reviewer, the shortfall between his new salary and his old
salary was to be made up by payment for mileage incurred
during his work. He was told that he would be expected to
cover at least 300 miles per week. His understanding was that
he would receive an allowance equivalent to a minimum of 300
miles per week. This understanding was reinforced when he
moved to the Credit Control department, and still received the
300 miles per week allowance.
2. When Company rationalisation took place, the worker was
prepared to continue as Credit Reviewer, with extra duties in
the General Office, provided that he received the minimum
mileage allowance. The Company refused to honour their
commitment to him in this regard.
3. By accepting the changed work practices, the worker has
incurred substantial loss of remuneration.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the worker's appointment to the position of
Credit Reviewer, he was offered the Company casual mileage
rate for travel in connection with his duties. There was no
commitment made to him that he would be guaranteed a certain
number of miles per week.
2. The terms of employment, signed by the worker, make no
mention of a guaranteed minimum mileage per week.
3. The worker's new position still involves a considerable
level of mileage. However, he seems to think that, regardless
of the requirements of the Credit Controller, that he should
travel to customers on the basis of his requirement to claim a
minimum amount of mileage.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation does not imply any guarantee by the Company of an
agreement to a fixed allowance and as it is potentially the most
equitable solution to the matter at issue, the Court considers
that it should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD931 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CALOR TEORANTA
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC449/92
concerning loss of income due to changes in conditions of
employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 6th of June, 1989, the worker was appointed to the
position of Credit Reviewer, with responsibility to monitor and
deal with special accounts. He was required to engage in
substantial travel and was paid for mileage incurred on business
trips. In June, 1992 following a rationalisation programme in the
Company, the worker was asked to work in the Credit Control
Department. The Union is seeking compensation for the worker due
to the reduced requirement for him to travel on the Company's
behalf. The Company's position is that the worker holds a
composite salary-level, agreed with him in May, 1989. It was made
clear to the worker at that time that the casual mileage rate
would apply to all travel. The dispute was investigated by a
Rights Commissioner on the 25th of October, 1992, whose findings
and recommendation were as follows:
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions.
1. I believe that there is a degree of merit in the
arguments which each side have advanced in this matter.
2. I note that at the time of his taking up the position of
Credit Reviewer it was indicated to the worker that he would
be required to travel at least 300 miles per week on behalf
of the Company.
DECISION:
In the light of the above I recommend that the worker accepts
his new assignment and he continues to co-operate with
Management in carrying out the duties assigned to him in
July, 1992. Both parties should monitor the mileage
undertaken by the worker in the course of this new assignment
and sit down together in September, 1993 to review matters.
Should the paid mileage travel by him in the period July,
1992 to September, 1993 fail to reach an average figure per
week of 300 miles then the matter may be referred back to me
for further consideration and recommendation.
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
The worker appealed against the Recommendation on the 22nd of
December, 1992. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 5th of
February, 1993.
WORKER'S/UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker was appointed to the position of Credit
Reviewer, the shortfall between his new salary and his old
salary was to be made up by payment for mileage incurred
during his work. He was told that he would be expected to
cover at least 300 miles per week. His understanding was that
he would receive an allowance equivalent to a minimum of 300
miles per week. This understanding was reinforced when he
moved to the Credit Control department, and still received the
300 miles per week allowance.
2. When Company rationalisation took place, the worker was
prepared to continue as Credit Reviewer, with extra duties in
the General Office, provided that he received the minimum
mileage allowance. The Company refused to honour their
commitment to him in this regard.
3. By accepting the changed work practices, the worker has
incurred substantial loss of remuneration.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the worker's appointment to the position of
Credit Reviewer, he was offered the Company casual mileage
rate for travel in connection with his duties. There was no
commitment made to him that he would be guaranteed a certain
number of miles per week.
2. The terms of employment, signed by the worker, make no
mention of a guaranteed minimum mileage per week.
3. The worker's new position still involves a considerable
level of mileage. However, he seems to think that, regardless
of the requirements of the Credit Controller, that he should
travel to customers on the basis of his requirement to claim a
minimum amount of mileage.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation does not imply any guarantee by the Company of an
agreement to a fixed allowance and as it is potentially the most
equitable solution to the matter at issue, the Court considers
that it should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
--------------
19th February, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.