Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92412 Case Number: AD937 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation ST427/91.
Recommendation:
5. Notwithstanding the Union view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was unnecessarily wide-ranging and abrasive and the
management opinion that it doubly penalised the Company, the Court
considers that the Rights Commissioner was correct in relation to
the fundamental issue when he held that the events in question
constituted a trade dispute.
Although the recommendation was unusual as it applied to the
Company, the Court does not consider that it was perverse in
relation to the evidence presented.
In the circumstances, the Court decides that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92412 APPEAL DECISION NO AD793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation ST427/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. For some time, the Company has tried to introduce one man
driver operation of its delivery fleet which is based at North
Mall, Cork. The Company has agreement on one man delivery in
Dublin and Galway but agreement could not be reached in Cork. In
May, 1992, the Company decided to implement one man operation in
Cork. Drivers who refused instructions to operate one man trucks
were suspended. Following discussions between the parties
settlement proposals were eventually agreed and the one man
operation was implemented. Subsequently, the Union submitted a
claim for loss of earnings on behalf of the suspended workers.
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation.
On the 29th June, 1992, the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation:-
"The events which gave rise to the dispute were clearly and
by any fair definition a trade dispute. That being the case
the draconian approach to implementing the disciplinary code
was not appropriate. Since it was a Trade Dispute by my
definition why should the employer pay "dispute pay".
There was in my view a contribution by both parties. The
workers involved have lost from nine to thirteen days for
what they considered a principled stand. The employer must
also be seen to suffer in the interests of equity.
I therefore recommend that the claim for payment of the lost
time fails. I further recommend that the Company pays
#1,000 to an agreed local charity without precedent or
prejudice in full and final settlement of all matters
arising from the events of April/May 1991."
On the 14th July, 1992, the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal in Cork on the 27th January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The events leading to the suspensions of the workers
were precipitated by the Company trying to force one man truck
operation without Union agreement. Workers naturally reacted
to the Company's arbitrary action and suffered substantial
losses in earnings as a result. They are entitled to
compensation. The Union's claim is for #1,000 each for
drivers and #600 for a shop steward.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is completely
unacceptable to the Union. He stated that a trade dispute
existed. This is not the case and Union members not suspended
continued working. The workers concerned suffered significant
financial losses as a result of the Company's action and are
entitled to compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The dispute and disruption of the Company's deliveries
could have been avoided if the Union had utilised agreed
procedures rather than taking disruptive action which created
a huge increase in delivery costs and upset customer
relations.
2. Workers who refused instructions were given every
opportunity to comply. Verbal warnings were confirmed in
writing and employees were made aware that continued refusal
to comply with instructions would result in suspensions or
dismissal. The Company had no alternative but to take
disciplinary action, in view of the worker's actions. The
Company did not appeal the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation but feels that his levy of #1,000 on the
Company is unfair given the substantial financial losses it
has incurred.
DECISION:
5. Notwithstanding the Union view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was unnecessarily wide-ranging and abrasive and the
management opinion that it doubly penalised the Company, the Court
considers that the Rights Commissioner was correct in relation to
the fundamental issue when he held that the events in question
constituted a trade dispute.
Although the recommendation was unusual as it applied to the
Company, the Court does not consider that it was perverse in
relation to the evidence presented.
In the circumstances, the Court decides that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
12th February, 1993 -----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman