AD9429

Subject:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST466/93.

Recommendation:
"I recommend that the Union accepts the agreed working
arrangements for another year to the 31-12-1994. The
position should then be reviewed by the parties. To avoid
any confusion such as has existed in the past, both sides
should monitor the occasions when assistance was provided or
denied upon reasonable request in the period in question
above."

The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14th
February, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th April, 1994
(the earliest date suitable to the parties).

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The agreement of 23rd February, 1993 stated that the two
van assistants would be re-employed if drivers had
difficulties operating the vans by themselves. There
have been numerous occasions when drivers required
assistance. This has only been supplied when work in
the warehouse is slack. If the warehouse is busy no
help is provided.

2. The Company states that there has been no upturn in
business, yet it recruited two workers for the warehouse
area. This is the area that the Company claims to be
overstaffed. The Company always intended to eliminate
van assistants. The Company should compensate van
drivers for their extra work and responsibility as a
result of working without van assistants.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company made the two van assistants redundant on a
"last in, first out" basis. This was done to protect
long term employees. The Company could have cut costs
further by making two warehouse staff redundant instead.

2. The Company is satisfied that drivers can operate the
vans without van assistants. On the rare occasions when
assistance is required, it is always provided. There
are no grounds for compensation for drivers. If the
Company compensated the drivers it would defeat the
entire purpose of the redundancies.


DECISION:


Noting that the van assistants, dismissed following the agreement
entered into in February 1993, are first in line for vacancies as
van assistants, should such arise, and are not precluded from
applying later for positions in the warehouse, the Court is
satisfied that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
should stand.

The Court so decides.

Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD94109 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2994


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


PARTIES:
COOPERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

AND

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST466/93.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is involved in the distribution of household
goods. It experienced trading difficulties in 1992 and in early
1993 decided on cost saving measures. These measures included
seeking the following redundancies, principally in the warehouse
area:

3 warehouse employees
The part-time warehouse cleaner
1 redundancy within the office

Following the departure of the part-time cleaner and another
warehouse employee it was decided on 23rd February 1993, in
agreement with the Union, that two van assistants would be made
redundant. The Company agreed to this although the cost saving
was not as much as it would have liked. This was because the two
van assistants were under 18 years of age and were not receiving
full wages. The agreement was subject to the condition that if
drivers were unable to operate vans by themselves, the two van
assistants would be re-employed and two existing warehouse workers
made redundant.

In August, 1993 two workers left the warehouse area and the
Company advertised from outside for their replacements. The Union
claims that by not recruiting the two van assistants, the Company
was in breach of the agreement of 23rd February, 1993. The
Company maintains that it was recruiting warehouse staff, not van
assistants as was mentioned in the agreement. If the Company was
to re-employ the two van assistants it would have to make two
existing warehouse workers redundant.

Following a meeting with an Industrial Relations Officer the
dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners Service and a
hearing took place on 9th December, 1993. At the hearing, the
Union claimed that drivers had needed assistance on numerous
occasions since the van assistants were made redundant and that
the drivers should be compensated. The Company refuted the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:


RECOMMENDATION:

"I recommend that the Union accepts the agreed working
arrangements for another year to the 31-12-1994. The
position should then be reviewed by the parties. To avoid
any confusion such as has existed in the past, both sides
should monitor the occasions when assistance was provided or
denied upon reasonable request in the period in question
above."

The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14th
February, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th April, 1994
(the earliest date suitable to the parties).

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The agreement of 23rd February, 1993 stated that the two
van assistants would be re-employed if drivers had
difficulties operating the vans by themselves. There
have been numerous occasions when drivers required
assistance. This has only been supplied when work in
the warehouse is slack. If the warehouse is busy no
help is provided.

2. The Company states that there has been no upturn in
business, yet it recruited two workers for the warehouse
area. This is the area that the Company claims to be
overstaffed. The Company always intended to eliminate
van assistants. The Company should compensate van
drivers for their extra work and responsibility as a
result of working without van assistants.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company made the two van assistants redundant on a
"last in, first out" basis. This was done to protect
long term employees. The Company could have cut costs
further by making two warehouse staff redundant instead.

2. The Company is satisfied that drivers can operate the
vans without van assistants. On the rare occasions when
assistance is required, it is always provided. There
are no grounds for compensation for drivers. If the
Company compensated the drivers it would defeat the
entire purpose of the redundancies.


DECISION:


Noting that the van assistants, dismissed following the agreement
entered into in February 1993, are first in line for vacancies as
van assistants, should such arise, and are not precluded from
applying later for positions in the warehouse, the Court is
satisfied that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
should stand.

The Court so decides.

~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court




27th April, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O'N/A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman