Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93693 Case Number: AD9424 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GILBEYS OF IRELAND - and - TWO WORKERS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC 367/93.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the oral and written
submissions of the parties, finds no grounds to alter the findings
of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93693 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2494
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
GILBEYS OF IRELAND
AND
TWO WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC
367/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the wine and spirit business. It
employs 120 workers in marketing, sales and distribution and 300
workers in manufacturing and international marketing. The dispute
concerns two workers who are employed in the warehouse.
In July 1992, the Company introduced an owner / driver
arrangement. The two workers concerned worked temporarily as
relief driver and helper to cover sickness and holidays as
required. The temporary work ceased with the introduction of the
owner / driver scheme and the two workers returned full time to
the warehouse. The two workers made a claim for loss of earning
and loss of subsistence. The Company agreed to pay two years
compensation for loss of earnings but rejected the claim for loss
of subsistence
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners' Service and
a hearing took place on 3rd November, 1993. A Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation issued as follows:
"In light of the above I must uphold the decision of the
Company to reject this claim and I recommend accordingly."
The Recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court
on 22nd December, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th
March, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two workers concerned were entitled to "allowable
expenses" before the introduction of the owner / driver
arrangement. Other workers in the Company, who were
made redundant as a result of the owner / driver scheme,
received a loyalty bonus of #2,000 each for "allowable
expenses." The two workers concerned should be
compensated with a similar bonus as they were equally as
loyal to the Company as the redundant workers.
2. One of the workers concerned received "allowable
expenses" over two Christmas periods although he only
worked in the warehouse. The total loss for allowable
expenses for 2 years (details supplied to the Court)
would amount to #1,870 per worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The two workers concerned received expenses for doing
specific work which they are no longer doing.
Compensation for loss of subsistence would have a
serious knock-on effect throughout the Company.
2. The workers concerned received compensation for loss of
earnings although they only worked on a temporary basis
as driver and helper. The two workers are in receipt of
the same entitlements (e.g. subsidised meals) as other
workers in the Company.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all of the oral and written
submissions of the parties, finds no grounds to alter the findings
of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
28th March, 1994 ____________________________________
C.O'N/A.L. Deputy Chairman