Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93505 Case Number: LCR14239 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PRINTECH PLC - and - GRAPHICAL PRINT AND MEDIA UNION |
Dispute concerning the compensation of a worker for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court notes the employee concerned in this dispute,
recognising that a redundancy situation applied accepted the
Company's offer of alternative employment. Taking cognizance of
the loss of earnings the employee suffered as a consequence of
his re-deployment the Court considers that it is not unreasonable
that he be paid some element of compensation. The Court therefore
recommends that the worker concerned be paid #1500 in full and
final settlement of his claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93505 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14239
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PRINTECH PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
GRAPHICAL PRINT AND MEDIA UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the compensation of a worker for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 350 workers concerned in the
production of computer manuals. There were 3 workers
concerned as supervisors in the facilities department which
was responsible for the cleaning of the factory on 3 shifts.
One supervisor was assigned is to each shift. The shifts
were changed in February 1993 and the 3 shift supervisors
were no longer required.
2. The 3 workers were asked to apply for positions as
general operatives and following interview they were
re-assigned. One of the workers remained in the facilities
department under the supervision of a newly assigned
chargehand.
3. The workers lost their supervisors' and shift rates in
their new positions. The Union made a claim on the Company
for compensation for loss of earnings. The claim was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 19th May, 1993. No
progress was possible and the claim was referred to the
Labour Court on 30th August, 1993, under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 12th October, 1993, (the earliest date suitable
to both parties). The Company informed the Court at the
investigation that it had reached a settlement with 2 of the
3 workers. The remaining worker was employed in the
facilities department as a general operative.
UNION"S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The worker was appointed on 31st July, 1989 as a
supervisor on night-shift. He was given 2 weeks notice that
he was losing his supervisory and night-shift rates. The
Company offered either re-deployment as a general operative
or statutory redundancy. The Company refused to consider an
enhanced redundancy package.
2. The worker has lost status and substantial earnings
(details supplied) by the unilateral change in his conditions
of employment. There is a supervisory position in the
facilities department which the worker has not been offered.
The Company has made no effort to realistically deal with the
claim and the Union is seeking compensation in line with
accepted industrial relations norms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The computer industry has taken a downward trend in
recent years which has affected the Company's turnover and
business output. The Company's policy has always been to
avoid a redundancy situation by using re-deployment. This
was the policy used in the re-assignment of the workers in
the facilities department. The re-structuring of the
department was customer driven in an effort to reduce costs.
The Company is not in a position to pay the difference in
premium between the supervisors' and general operatives'
rates of pay.
2. The newly created positions of general operative were
accepted by the workers and 2 of the workers have accepted
the Company's offer of compensation. The Company is willing
to extend this settlement to the third worker (details
supplied). In the present business climate, the Company
cannot afford any further escalation in its costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the employee concerned in this dispute,
recognising that a redundancy situation applied accepted the
Company's offer of alternative employment. Taking cognizance of
the loss of earnings the employee suffered as a consequence of
his re-deployment the Court considers that it is not unreasonable
that he be paid some element of compensation. The Court therefore
recommends that the worker concerned be paid #1500 in full and
final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th November, 1993 Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.