Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD942 Case Number: AD9423 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GYPSUM INDUSTRIES - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC121/93 concerning compensation for the transfer of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
detailed submission made personally by the individual involved the
Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
is reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD942 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
GYPSUM INDUSTRIES
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
DC121/93 concerning compensation for the transfer of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker had 24 years' service as an electrician with
the Company when Drumgoosat mine closed in 1989. Prior to
the closure of the mine negotiations on redundancy and
redeployment took place between the Union and the Company.
2. The agreement reached on the transitional arrangements
allowed for a payment of #5,000 to the worker in respect of
any loss associated with his redeployment to the Company's
factory. The worker refused a further payment of #2,000
which was to be paid as compensation for the loss of his
chargehand differential. The worker sought to be assigned to
Knocknacran open cast mine as an electrician.
3. The parties could not agree locally on the issue of the
worker's chargehand rate and the dispute was referred to the
Rights Commissioners for investigation and Recommendation. A
Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 10th
November, 1993 and his Recommendation as follows was issued
on 24th November, 1993:-
"Whilst I accept that the claimant himself may not have
been a party to the negotiations on compensation, I am
nevertheless satisfied that there are no substantive
grounds for a restoration of his chargehand rate. I
therefore recommend that the Company increase their
offer of compensation to the worker for his loss to
#2,750, entirely without prejudice or precedent, which
amount he should accept in full and final settlement of
his claim under this heading.
I am also satisfied that the claimant's aspirations to
participate in the rotational arrangements at
Knocknacran mine are fair and reasonable and I therefore
further recommend that the Company make arrangements to
provide him with the essential training for this work
with a view to favourably responding to his application
in this regard."
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is standard practice in industry that where a Company
re-organisation requires a worker to move to a lower-paid
job, the individual is "redcircled". The Union seeks the
retention of the chargehand rate for the worker.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation recognised the
worker's aspiration to be assigned to Knocknacran mine as
fair and reasonable. However, he did not recommend that the
Company should include him in the roster. The Union is
seeking that the Company commit itself to including the
worker on the roster for Knocknacran mine.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has accepted the terms of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and has already put in place
arrangements for the provision of training to facilitate the
inclusion of the worker on the rota providing electrical
maintenance cover at Knocknacran.
2. The Company has at all times adhered to industrial
relations procedures. It was agreed that the worker would be
one of the electricians being deployed from the mines to the
factory. There was no question of the worker's wages being
redcircled at this stage.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
detailed submission made personally by the individual involved the
Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
is reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th March, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.