Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94312 Case Number: AD9470 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GREENCORE GROUP PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW47/94 concerning claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94312 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
GREENCORE GROUP PLC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW47/94 concerning claim for compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a driver at
Ballybeg Quarry in November, 1963. Ballybeg Quarry is
situated 5.50 miles from the Mallow Sugar Factory and is one of
three quarries in Greencore Agribusiness, Ltd., a Company
within the Greencore Group.
In 1985/'86, the Group separated the Quarries Division from
the Sugar Division in order to ensure their respective
survival. Staff were designated "Sugar Factory" or Ballybeg.
The worker concerned was designated Ballybeg on seniority
grounds.
Prior to 1985/'86 the worker concerned worked at Ballybeg
from February to October each year and transferred to the
Mallow Sugar Factory during the beet campaign, October to
January. His earnings during the beet campaign were higher,
due to 6/7 day shift at the sugar factory. The worker has
not transferred since the 1985/'86 campaign.
In 1992 the Union submitted a claim for compensation for loss
of earnings resulting from the loss of the beet campaign
work. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 5th May, 1994 the Rights Commissioner
recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker and the Union accept that no
compensation is payable in this instance".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 26th May, 1994 in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Labour Court heard the appeal in Cork on 5th October,
1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The loss of earnings suffered by the worker was as a
result of the Company's decision to restructure its
operation. In circumstances where such a loss of
earnings occurs it is common industrial relations
practice to compensate the worker for the loss of
earnings.
2. It was the intention of both parties to reach agreement
on all matters relating to the restructuring. Final
agreement on the issue was never reached. The Company
had offered an interim arrangement to allow the worker
transfer for a further 2 years from 1986 but this
arrangement was not implemented.
3. It is accepted by the Union that if market forces had
been solely responsible for the loss of earnings, then
no compensation would be payable. This is not the case
and the Rights Commissioner supported the Union's
position in his recommendation.
4. The Labour Court has in the past recommended
compensation for loss of overtime in similar
circumstances.
5. The worker was not called upon to transfer for the
1986/'87 beet campaign and has been unhappy with the
situation since. In the circumstance compensation of 5
times the annual loss is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1985/'86, the Group, due to ongoing losses were
obliged to separate the Quarries Division from the Sugar
Division to enable both Divisions to become cost-
effective and to generate practices appropriate to each.
The changes were driven by market and pricing pressures
and not by any arbitrary decisions of the Group.
2. The worker who was recruited for Ballybeg, was correctly
designated to Ballybeg on seniority and suitability
grounds, while some senior drivers had the choice of
Mallow and Ballybeg.
3. The Company never agreed to the Union's request to allow
drivers who traditionally transferred during the beet
campaign to transfer for a transitional period.
4. In 1987/'88 the worker concerned was the recipient of a
reasonable amount of overtime.
5. The claim was presented in 1992/'93. If the claim has
validity it would have been pursued in the years
immediately after 1985/'86 at which time temporary
drivers were recruited at the sugar factory.
6. The Company does not guarantee overtime earnings and
while the earnings diminished in comparison to previous
earnings the changes which were forced on the Company by
external market forces and the necessity to survive also
impacted on many other workers. The worker was treated
fairly by the Company in regard to overtime and
non-imposition of lay-off during difficult times.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman