Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94563 Case Number: AD94101 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Number CW174/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court finds
no reason to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94563 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Number
CW174/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for compensation, on behalf of 7
workers, arising from loss of job premium payments. The
Union maintains that the 7 workers who had been transferred
from the chewing gum manufacturing plant (Gum Base) to the
pharmaceutical division (Elase) in the period since 1985,
were entitled to compensation of #500 each. The Union stated
that the transfers were involuntary and that the workers
concerned lost certain occasional premium payments. Between
1991 and 1993 lead-in payments were paid to all workers but
the amount paid in the Elase plant was #500 less than the
payment in Gum Base.
The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that the
workers had higher earnings in Elase than in Gum Base, and
that a claim for loss of earnings had been rejected by a
Rights Commissioner in 1987.
The current dispute was investigated by a Rights
Commissioner, on the 27th of September, 1994, who, in his
findings, stated that:
"...this dispute is validly before me because it is
based on events occurring after 1987 and not on loss of
earnings. Neither party has made me aware of the
transfer arrangements in the Company between the two
plants. If the workers were so aggrieved at their
transfer in 1985, why did they not lodge a request for
a return transfer to Gum Base if and when circumstances
changed?
I do not consider that the time elapsed since 1985 in
itself denies them consideration of this claim.
However I do not consider that the different lead-in
payments relate to the elimination of certain premia in
the future. No Elase workers have been receiving Gum
Base premia and therefore (whatever the 1985
circumstances) I can see no reason for these 7 workers
to be paid it".
The Rights Commissioner recommended that the Union accept the
Company's position in the dispute. The Union appealed the
Recommendation on the 21st of October, 1994. The Court heard
the appeal on the 13th of December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers who were involuntarily transferred in 1985
should receive the same compensation as those in receipt
of the lead-in payment agreed in 1993.
2. The workers occasionally sought to be transferred back
to Gum Base, but without success. The Company's refusal
to accede to workers' requests for such transfers is
likely due to the increased level of training/commitment
required in the Elase plant.
3. The transfers came about in order to accommodate a
reduction in manning and not due to a serious downturn
in work. This is supported by the fact that, in the
period immediately following the transfers, the average
earnings in the Gum Base increased substantially
(details supplied to the Court).
4. The Rights Commissioner accepts that the Gum Base
workers received #500 for the elimination of the job
premia. Therefore, in the interest of parity, and
bearing in mind the circumstances concerning the
transfer of the 7, similar compensation should be paid
to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is based on something that happened 9 years
ago. It has no relevance at present. Workers are
employed solely in the pharmaceutical plant and have not
had to carry out the functions associated with the
lead-in payment given to those employees in the Gum Base
plant since 1985.
2. The workers concerned receive a greater rate of pay than
the workers in the Gum Base plant.
3. In any event, the workers concerned did receive a #1,000
payment in 1985.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court finds
no reason to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December, 1994 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman