Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94316 Case Number: LCR14554 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED - and - A WORKER;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST135/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and, therefore, should be upheld.
In this regard, the Court notes that the Company will deal with
the appellant's transfer and shift application in an equitable
fashion.
The Court rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94316 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14554
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST135/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1993, the Company and the Union finalised a new
Company/Union Agreement regarding "productivity/continuous
performance improvement". A paragraph which read "Seniority
will not apply to any employment issue" was removed,
following an objection by the Union.
At the time of the Agreement a dispute arose in relation to
the worker (a fitter). He alleged a loss of earnings, on the
basis that shift-work should have been allocated to him
because of his seniority. The Company employs 25 fitters, (9
of whom are recently recruited) 16 of whom are on shift-work.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's service
and a hearing took place on 24th March, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner recommended that the worker's claim, for shift
work and retrospective compensation, should fail. The Union
appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 31st May,
1994, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th September,
1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is the most senior fitter in the Company and
has been seeking shift work for the last three years.
He has lost an estimated #6,000 per annum for the three
years he was deprived of shift opportunities.
2. Some years ago, the worker was in dispute with a Company
Manager over an incident in the production area (details
supplied to the Court). As a result of this dispute,
the Manager refused to have the worker on shift in his
area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The area in which the worker is employed at present is
not on shift-work. Should the area revert to
shift-work, the worker will get first choice of refusal.
2. There are a number of fitters, with longer service than
the worker, who are not on shift. The worker earned
significant overtime last year, more than many workers
on shift.
3. If the worker was moved to a shiftwork area, another
fitter would have to move out of that area. The worker
concerned would require specialised training.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and, therefore, should be upheld.
In this regard, the Court notes that the Company will deal with
the appellant's transfer and shift application in an equitable
fashion.
The Court rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th September, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.