Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94208 Case Number: AD9455 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: A. GUINNESS SON AND COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC 158/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has examined the submissions from the parties and noted
the additional points made at the hearing. In all the
circumstances of the case the Court has concluded that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94208 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
A. GUINNESS SON AND COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. DC 158/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in the catering department in 1972. In 1983,
the worker was among a group of thirteen employees who
became surplus to requirements following the Company's
decision to introduce self-service in the catering area.
She was subsequently appointed to a position in the
Brewery General Stores (B.G.S.) where she performed
duties of a higher grade and received the appropriate
rate of the grade. After approximately two years she
was moved from B.G.S. and was then employed in a number
of areas in the brewery. The higher rate of pay she
enjoyed in B.G.S. was discontinued.
2. They Union claimed that the worker was treated unfairly
and that she should have retained the higher rate of pay
which she held in B.G.S. Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 8th March,
1994, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"Whilst I can appreciate the redeployment difficulties
experienced by the Claimant since the Catering
Department closed down, her transfer out of the
General Stores Area was in fact implemented at her own
behest. Consequently as there are no justifiable
grounds on which the higher rates of pay she then
enjoyed, should be restored with appropriate
retrospection, I must recommend that the worker's
claim, in that regard, fails.
Nevertheless, as I have sympathy with the claimant, in
relation to the problems she encountered during the
several stages of her redeployment, I recommend that
the Company pay her an ex-gratia lump sum of #500, as
a gesture of goodwill in that regard, entirely without
prejudice or precedent for the future, and in full and
final settlement of her claim, I also suggest that
both the Company and the Union should have further
discussions with a view to resolving any anomalies
which arise in the Redeployment Scheme, from time to
time".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On the 6th April, 1994, the Union appealed 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 the 29th July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was given to understand by
Management that her appointment to the position in B.G.S.
was a permanent one. She was subsequently forced to move
to a temporary post. She expressed her dissatisfaction
to the Company about its decision to move her.
2. The worker should be allowed to retain the higher rate
of pay which she enjoyed in B.G.S. Other workers, junior
to the claimant, who were posted to higher grades and
then redeployed to other jobs, continued to enjoy the
higher grade rate. The claimant should be treated in
similar fashion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's transfer to B.G.S. was of a temporary nature
and effected in accordance with the agreed redeployment
regulations. She was aware that she was not promoted to
a higher grade post on a permanent basis but received the
appropriate allowance for doing higher grade work.
2. The worker was treated fairly at all times. She was
offered a number of temporary positions but refused
particular assignments as she objected to temporary work
even though the Company pointed out to her that she could
apply for permanent promotional posts at any stage while
on temporary work.
3. The Company was prepared to pay the #500 as recommended
by the Rights Commissioner even though it failed to see
the logic in his recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court has examined the submissions from the parties and noted
the additional points made at the hearing. In all the
circumstances of the case the Court has concluded that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.