AD933

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92761 Case Number: AD933 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER

Subject:
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 327/92 concerning the method of his selection for removal from the night-shift.

Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD92761 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD393

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)

and

A WORKER


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 327/92 concerning the method of his
selection for removal from the night-shift.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the assembly of harnesses for the
motor business, mainly for export to the U.K. market.

3. The Company's business has declined since 1991 due to the
continuing recession in the U.K.. As a result there have been a
number of redundancies across the board and the Company gradually
discontinued night-shift working. The night-shift ceased
operating on 8th December, 1992.

4. The worker who is employed as a cutter and has 14 years
service with the Company. He commenced working on the night-shift
in January, 1991 and remained working nights until he was
transferred to the day-shift in June, 1992. The worker claimed he
was wrongly transferred as his length of service on the
night-shift was taken into account instead of his overall service
with the Company. The worker sought to be retained on nights.
The Company rejected the claim.

5. The worker referred the claim to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 23rd October, 1992 and on 9th
November, 1992 he recommended as follows:

"I recommend that the claim of the worker must fail. The
Company has acted in good faith and in accordance with
established practice in negotiating the adjustment referred
to by the worker with Joint Union Committee. I recommend
accordingly".




The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.


6. The worker appealed against the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
15th January, 1993.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. In April, 1992, during discussions concerning workers
being transferred from the night-shift, length of service on
night-shift was not mentioned as a condition for transfer.


2. In accordance with custom and practice in the Cutting Area
overall service in the Company was the criteria used in
determining transfers.


3. An agreement was entered into between the Company and the
Union whereby length of service on the night-shift was the
determining factor in choosing people for transfer. This
agreement is invalid as it was made without the knowledge of
the workforce and some of the shop stewards


4. The worker had a reasonable expectation, in view of his
length of service, that he would be one of the last people to
be removed from the night-shift. As a consequence, he is
claiming, the difference between his actual earnings and that
which he would have earned had he been retained on the shift
for the period 8th June, 1992 and 8th December, 1992 (when the
night-shift ceased to operate).


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The agreement that currently exists for removal of people
from night-shift was worked out by the Company and the Union
and accepted by both parties at that time.


2. If the worker's claim was conceded it would undermine the
agreement reached and other agreements in existence as it
would be open to individuals to challenge all agreements.



DECISION:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


John O'Connell
_____________________
26th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.