Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9492 Case Number: AD9432 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union and the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW 250/93 concerning claim for compensation for loss of fork-lift truck driving duties.
Recommendation:
Having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions the Court given all the
circumstances of the case does not find grounds for the payment of
compensation to the workers concerned.
It is the decision of the Court that the appeal of the Company be
upheld.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9492 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CAHILL MAY ROBERTS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union and the Company against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation CW 250/93 concerning claim for
compensation for loss of fork-lift truck driving duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1981, the manning arrangement within the Company for
fork-lift truck drivers was that there were three "listed"
fork-lift truck drivers and two additional drivers (the workers
concerned in this dispute) who were used on a "when required"
basis. The listed drivers received a weekly allowance and the
other drivers were paid an equivalent daily rate for the days they
were required to drive the fork-lift truck.
In time the workers fork-lift duties increased to the level of the
listed drivers. They were paid the weekly allowance for more than
10 years.
In October, 1991, a dispute arose concerning the workers and
outside driving duties. Local level discussions took place
following which the workers were informed that their services as
fork-lift drivers would no longer be required unless they were
prepared to drive inside and outside.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 20th December, 1993, the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the two workers
accept the sum of #300 each in settlement of this dispute."
The workers were named in the recommendation.
Following the Rights Commissioners hearing both parties responded
to a request from the Rights Commissioner and reached agreement on
future driving arrangements for fork-lift trucks (details supplied
to the Court).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 21st
March, 1994, (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned had no agreement with management
to drive outside. In the past they drove outside to oblige
management.
2. The workers objected to an extention of their duties
without agreement. Management had refused to enter into
discussions concerning the difference in duties of the
"listed" fork-lift drivers and the workers concerned.
3. The workers were unfairly removed by management from
their fork-lift duties and should be compensated for their
loss. In the circumstances it is not unusual for the Company
to pay 65 times the weekly loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no justification in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. In October, 1991, the workers refused to
drive outside. It was the first occasion that the workers
had taken this action. The Company has no agreement based on
inside driving only.
2. The workers were informed that fork-lift drivers were
required to drive inside and outside the warehouse and that
anyone unwilling to give this commitment would disqualify
themselves from consideration as fork-lift drivers.
3. The workers refused to carry out the same function as
their "listed" colleagues.
4. The workers disqualified themselves from consideration
as drivers and subsequently rejected compromise proposals put
forward by the Company in an effort to resolve the dispute.
DECISION:
Having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions the Court given all the
circumstances of the case does not find grounds for the payment of
compensation to the workers concerned.
It is the decision of the Court that the appeal of the Company be
upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1994 Tom McGrath
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman