Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94402 Case Number: AD9459 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FLAIR INTERNATIONAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation no. S.T. 220/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, noting that the claim of the Union is specifically in
relation to the change in the conditions under which the workers
are employed on the crane work upholds the recommendation of the
rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94402 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FLAIR INTERNATIONAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation no. S.T. 220/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns seven workers who are employed in
the warehouse area. Part of their duties includes the
operation of a fork-lift truck to off-load raw materials
from containers. In May, 1994 the Company purchased a
crane which replaced the fork-lift operations. In June,
1994 the Union submitted a claim for an 'introductory
payment' of #300 for each of the claimants as
compensation for operating the new equipment.
Management rejected the claim.
2. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 29th June,
1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"I recommend that the claimants receive the sum of
#200 each in full and final settlement of all
their claims associated with the introduction of
the crane and for their continuing co-operation
with the new system."
On the 3rd August, 1994 the Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard
the appeal on the 29th August, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision to purchase the crane is part of
its strategy to reduce overall costs. The use of the
crane does not constitute a significant change in the
claimant's duties. The Company is willing to have the
job re-evaluated to ascertain if an up-grading of the
post is warranted. This is in line with the agreed
Company/Union policy.
2. Unloading of materials is done outdoors regardless of
whether a crane or fork-lift is used. Appropriate
clothing is provided.
3. The Company/Union agreed job specification already
provides for such changes.
4. The Company has addressed the workers' concerns about
health and safety. A comprehensive training programme
has been introduced.
5. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the
terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work
(P.C.W.).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner's award of #200 essentially
recognised the fact that the claimants would be working
outdoors and exposed to the elements.
2. The claim is not cost increasing. The Company is saving
#200 per load as a result of the introduction of the
crane. The arrangement is fully self financing and does
not breach the P.C.W.
3. The workers are all trained fork-lift operators with no
previous involvement with this type of crane. The
workers were not exposed to variable climatic conditions
as the fork-lifts had protective hoods.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation does not
present a basis on which future claims for compensation
for the operation of new equipment, or technology, can
be compared.
5. There are many instances in other local employments
where lump sums have been paid to workers for
co-operation with the introduction of new machinery.
DECISION:
The Court, noting that the claim of the Union is specifically in
relation to the change in the conditions under which the workers
are employed on the crane work upholds the recommendation of the
rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th September, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman