Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92713 Case Number: AD9315 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KILKENNY TEXTILES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC350/90 regarding unfair treatment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the system of Quality Control in the plant is
now diffused throughout the process and that the post as
originally held by the worker here concerned no longer exists.
The Court is of the opinion therefore that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation that his loss of #20 per week be
bought out by the Company on a one year buy out basis should
stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92713 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KILKENNY TEXTILES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC350/90 regarding unfair treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company in 1983
as a Quality Control Operator in the Laboratory. During
1990/1991 there was a major reorganisation programme in the
Company. From May, 1991 the testing function was changed and
the Worker was transferred to the packing department for four
hours per day. In August, 1991 he was moved to automatic
winding duties and in November, 1991 he was placed on shift
work.
2. The worker objected to these changes and the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner
heard the case on the 30th April, 1992 and recommended (No.
BC 28/92) that both sides discuss the issue and if they
failed to agree on a solution, to refer the matter back to
the Rights Commissioner for a final recommendation.
3. Agreement could not be reached and the matter was
referred back again to the Rights Commissioner. A second
hearing took place on the 28th October, 1992 and the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation on the 13th November,
1992 (No. BC350/92). He put forward the following three
options and recommended that the parties negotiate an
agreement on one of them:-
1) The worker to retain his current #20 per week
differential on a red circled basis.
2) The #20 per week loss of income suffered by the
worker to be bought out by the Company on a one
year buy out basis.
3) The worker to elect and be granted redundancy.
(The worker's name was used in the recommendation)
4. Agreement could not be reached on this recommendation
and the Company appealed the case to the Labour Court on the
20th November, 1992. The Labour Court investigated the
dispute on the 2nd March, 1993 in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was reassured that his job as Quality
Controller would remain following the reorganisation in the
Company.
2. Aspects of the worker's job still exist and are carried
out by management.
3. No restrictions are being placed by the worker on
performing additional work to supplement that of a quality
control nature.
4. The worker is prepared to work either on days or on
shift.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The job of Laboratory Tester in the Company no longer
exists.
2. There is a well established precedent within the Company
whereby a reduction in a rate of pay is dealt with by a 13
week buy-out.
3. The Rights Commissioner Recommendation has not brought
about a solution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the system of Quality Control in the plant is
now diffused throughout the process and that the post as
originally held by the worker here concerned no longer exists.
The Court is of the opinion therefore that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation that his loss of #20 per week be
bought out by the Company on a one year buy out basis should
stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd March, 1993 John O'Connell
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman