Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93586 Case Number: AD941 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PEAMOUNT INDUSTRIES - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioners recommendation No. ST269/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds the Company, in accordance with their agreements,
was entitled to deploy staff as it saw fit.
The Court, given all of the circumstances of the case, finds no
grounds have been put forward to warrant amending the
Recommendation of The Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claiment.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93586 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD 194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PEAMOUNT INDUSTRIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners recommendation No.
ST269/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Company since
1986. The worker has had a variety of jobs, including packing
boxes, stitching or division assembly. These jobs, which are
franchise jobs given by local industry, are paid at differing
piecework rates. The amount of work available and the rate of pay
are, therefore, variable. Workers revert to general duties when
piecework is not available. The rate of pay for general duties is
calculated as an average of the piecework rate of the previous 13
weeks.
The dispute arose in early 1992. The worker concerned was on
general duties at an unusually high rate of pay. The worker was
asked to revert to piecework but was not agreeable, claiming a
loss of earnings. The Company, which has a Productivity Agreement
with S.I.P.T.U., states that it was entitled to deploy staff as
it saw fit. The dispute was the subject of two Rights
Commissioners investigations, on 20th January, 1992 and 24th
August, 1993. On both occasions the Rights Commissioner found in
favour of the Company. The second recommendation was appealed by
the Union to the Labour Court on 30th September, 1993 under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 2nd December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned did a variety of jobs and became
more skilful than some of her colleagues. The worker's
earning up to January 1992 were #292.00 per week. Her
earnings were reduced to #175.00 per week, which would give a
loss of earning of #9,360 for the past 20 months. The worker
concerned had become used to a standard of living which she
no longer enjoys.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Because of the nature of the work involved there is no
fixed rate of pay. Therefore, there can be no claim for a
loss of earnings. The Company has the right to deploy staff
as it sees fit.
2. Rather than suffering a loss of earnings, the worker's
rate of pay has been increasing (details supplied). A
withdrawal of franchise agreements by local industry has
meant a reduction of piece work. The result of this has led
to several redundancies. The worker concerned gets her fair
share of the remaining work available.
3. A Rights Commissioner has twice found in favour of the
Company and rejected the worker's appeals.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds the Company, in accordance with their agreements,
was entitled to deploy staff as it saw fit.
The Court, given all of the circumstances of the case, finds no
grounds have been put forward to warrant amending the
Recommendation of The Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claiment.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th January, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. ________________
Deputy Chairman