Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94234 Case Number: AD9446 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW42/94.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the submissions of the parities and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94234 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW42/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates two shifts daily. The shift times are:
7.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. Monday to Thursday
2.10 p.m. to 10.10 p.m.
7.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. Friday
2.20 p.m. to 9.20 p.m.
3. There is an overlap period of one hours fifteen minutes (2.10
p.m. to 3.25 p.m.) from Monday to Thursday when workers from both
shifts are present. Operators from the first shift run the plant.
Operators from the second shift do whatever miscellaneous work is
required
4. The dispute concerns a utility worker from the second shift
who was asked to empty out skips. The worker refused, claiming
that there was utility work being done by another operator which
he, the worker concerned, should be doing. 9/10 other workers
also refused to perform the duties required of them. The
remainder of the workers on the second shift stopped work in
support of this action. The plant operations were stopped for the
remainder of the shift, 7 hours 40 minutes and for the shift the
following morning. A total of 47 workers lost earnings for seven
hours and forty minutes.
5. The Union claims that the case of the worker concerned is
different in that he was taken off the clock by Management. None
of the other workers are claiming loss of earnings
6. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners service
and a hearing took place on 6th march, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that no
payment is merited in this dispute".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 27th
April, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not refuse to work on the day in
question. There was utility work to be done and he was the
appropriate person to do the work. Instead, the work was
given to a day-worker.
2. At the time of the dispute negotiations were taking
place to introduce a trial period for new duties during the
overlap period. Clarification of these duties was not
finalised and the workers were unsure of the changes.
3. The worker has been with the Company for seven years and
has never been involved in initiating a work-stoppage before.
He should not have been taken off the clock by management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A Programme for Internal Action was agreed between
Company and Union in May, 1993. The Programme sought to
utilise workers during the overlap period to perform
miscellaneous duties as necessary. Under the Programme the
workers affirmed that they would:-
"- Be prepared at all times to take up a full workload
- Be willing to work flexibly
- Be totally committed to the concept of ongoing
change and continuous improvement".
The Company informed the Shop Stewards about the work
involved.
2. The 9/10 workers who refused to work were given time to
consult with the Shop Stewards They were informed that they
would not be paid for the time-stoppage. They still refused
to work.
3. The worker concerned is no different to any other
worker. He was one of a number of surplus workers during the
overlap period and was asked to work as per the Company/Union
Programme. No worker has a claim on any job during the
overlap period. No other worker sought payment for the time
of stoppage.
4. The trial period to introduce new duties did not refer
to the overlap period.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the submissions of the parities and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
15th June, 1994 ----------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman