Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93239 Case Number: AD9342 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NORTON WATERFORD LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST6/93 concerning loss of a shift premium.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, given all the circumstances of this case as
expressed by the parties decides that the Recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner should be accepted.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93239 DECISION NO. AD4293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: NORTON WATERFORD LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST6/93 concerning loss of a shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The two workers were on temporary contracts for a year
and had worked a two-shift system attracting a 25% premium.
In October, 1992, they were appointed to permanent positions
as day workers and were advised that they would lose the
shift premium.
2. The Company offered to compensate the workers for loss
of the shift premium by:
a) retention of full premium for two weeks plus,
b) 50% of full premium for one further week.
The Union rejected this offer and sought payment of the shift
premium up to Christmas i.e. approximately 8 weeks. The
matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing
was held on the 11th February, 1993.
The Rights Commissioner in ST6/93 recommended:-
"that the Company's final offer of 2 weeks' compensation
be increased to 3 weeks without prejudice to the
on-going local discussions on the Agreement and without
precedent."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
the 24th March, 1993 and the Court investigated the matter on
the 4th May, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are entitled to a reasonable level of
compensation.
2. The loss of #48 per week is a huge reduction in the
worker's pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The compensation offered was reasonable and fair.
2. The workers employment could have ended in September,
1992 as there was pressure from abroad to reduce the
workforce.
3. The workers accepted the jobs on the pay and conditions
offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court, given all the circumstances of this case as
expressed by the parties decides that the Recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
10th June, 1993 ____________________________________
P.O.C./J.C.
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.