Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94353 Case Number: AD9478 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LARGO FOODS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC75/94.
Recommendation:
The Court given all of the circumstances of the case and having
considered the oral and written submissions of the parties does
not find grounds have been adduced to overturn the recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94353 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7894
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LARGO FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC75/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. Largo Foods Limited manufactures PERRI and other crisps and
snack foods. It employs one hundred production workers of
which half are members of S.I.P.T.U.
On Monday 14th February, 1994, the workers concerned
commenced work at 8 a.m. to finish at 4.30 p.m. The Unions
complained to Management at 10.30 a.m. that it was too cold
for its members to work in the production area and requested
that the Company find a solution to the problem. It was
accepted by all that on the particular day the weather
conditions were extremely cold with temperatures below
freezing point. The Company indicated that it would hire
blow heaters but that they would not be delivered to the
factory before 1 p.m. At this point all the production
workers (33) left the factory area and went to the canteen.
The production manager requested that they return to work or
to clock out if not resuming work. About half the workers
involved in the dispute returned to work immediately and the
other half resumed when the heaters arrived at 1 p.m.. The
Company deducted 2 hours pay from those workers who did not
return to work.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 25th
May, 1994 and in his recommendation BC75/94 recommended:-
"that the employees in question who refused to continue
working 2 hours should forfeit 50% of their pay for that
time".
On 6th July, 1994 the Company appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 24th
October, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the Health and Safety legislation factories are
required to be heated to 60 degrees fahrenheit after the
first hours work. The legislation also states that a
thermometer should be installed in each room. The
Company was in breach of these regulations.
2. For months the Union had made representations to the
Company, without success, for the installation of
heaters in the factory. On many occasions the workers
worked in temperatures which were below the statutory
level. It is not acceptable to the Union that 2 hours
pay should have been deducted from those workers given
that the Company had failed to provide proper heating.
The workers were entitled to expect conditions of
employment to be of an acceptable standard. Their
protest, therefore, should not be deemed to be
unofficial action.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 14th February, 1994 at 10.30 a.m. the Shop
Steward approached management to complain about the cold
in the production area. Management then contacted a
company called Ashbourne Hire Services to hire blow
heaters. Ashbourne Hire Services stated that they would
not be in a position to deliver the heaters before 1
p.m.. The workers were informed of the situation. As a
result all production employees walked off the factory
floor and went to the canteen. Management requested
that they either return to work or clock out. Some
sixteen employees returned to work, but the rest did not
return until the heaters arrived at 1 p.m. There was 2
hours production lost that day and as a result the
Company deducted 2 hours pay from those who did not
work.
2. It is the Company's view that the employees who stopped
work engaged in unofficial industrial action and
therefore payment for such action is unjustified and
unreasonable.
3. The employees who returned to work when requested to do
so were paid for the hours they worked. It is
unreasonable therefore, for employees who did not work
to be compensated for those 2 hours.
DECISION:
The Court given all of the circumstances of the case and having
considered the oral and written submissions of the parties does
not find grounds have been adduced to overturn the recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1994 Tom McGrath
L.W./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman