Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94479 Case Number: AD9477 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COILLTE TEORANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW25/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission the Court is satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94479 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COILLTE TEORANTA
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW25/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of its member (Worker
A) for loss of earnings following the loss of his driving
duties. The worker was employed on driving duties from 1962
to 1989 when following a change in silvicultural practice his
driving duties ceased. The worker returned to general forest
duties in 1989.
The Union is claiming that the same compensation should be
paid to this worker as applied to another worker (Worker B).
In the latter case the Rights Commissioner recommended a sum
of #7,000 in settlement of the claim. The Company indicated
that in the case of Worker B it was accepted by both sides
that it was an exceptional claim.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the Worker A dispute on
11th August, 1994 and recommended that:-
"the Company offers the sum of #2,000 in respect of loss
of duties and in settlement of this dispute".
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The Union appealed against the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation on 15th September, 1994. The Court
heard the appeal in Limerick on the 4th November, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union claim that Worker A should get the same
compensation as that which applied to Worker B. Worker
A was on driving duties with the Company from 1962 to
1989. He has since worked as a forestry worker but has
suffered a substantial loss of earnings as a result of
the change in his duties.
2. Both Worker A and B had long service as drivers and
suffered the same financial loss because of changed
duties. It is reasonable therefore that the same level
of compensation should apply to both workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was accepted by both sides that the case of Worker B
was an exceptional one. Therefore, the Company expect
that the settlement terms applying to any other claim
would be less than that applied to Worker B.
2. The Company takes the view that the formula (details
supplied to the Court), negotiated at the conciliation
conference on 23rd October, 1992 (for Worker A) and to
which both sides agreed to recommend for acceptance was
reasonable. The formula agreed at conciliation formed
the basis for the offer made by the Company to Worker A.
DECISION:
Having considered the submission the Court is satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
L.W./M.M. ____________
Chairman