Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94674 Case Number: AD9526 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 234/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties, concluded that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair in this particular case.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94674 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW
234/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns an incident where, during the course of
his duties, a worker suffered an injury to his back causing
him to miss 6 days' work. At issue is whether or not the
workers should be paid the 'discretionary' 3 days' pay until
the commencement of social welfare payments. The dispute was
investigated by a Rights Commissioner who recommended that
"the Company makes the payment without prejudice to any
future arguments it may wish to put forward in any other
forum", and that the Union and the workers "accept that the
payment is made on an ex gratia basis without any admission
by the Company".
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Court, on the
17th of November, 1994, in accordance with Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on the 27th of March, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company does not believe this to be an industrial
relations issue. It has never been negotiated on and
has never been included as part of a comprehensive
agreement. It is something that the Company has always
held to be within its discretion.
2. The Company's work-stations are ergonomically correct.
No previous complaints were raised about the station.
3. In the past, other workers have been refused up to a
maximum of 3 days' pay because either no works accident
took place or the Company felt that it had no liability
for the accident in question.
4. The Company should not be penalised for making a
generous gesture to workers involved in genuine work
accidents.
5. The worker claimed that he had bent too low to obtain
particular connectors. It is the Company's contention
that he had to bend only 6" to 7" and that there was no
complaint regarding the function carried out, prior to
this particular incident.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union is not attempting to establish liability in
this case. However, the Company has broken a long-
standing agreement by denying the 3 days' pay to the
claimant.
2. The agreement to facilitate workers in this way was
never an admission of liability on the Company's part.
3. It is custom and practice in the plant to pay workers 3
days' pay when accidents occur during the course of
their work.
4. As the worker was sent home by the Company doctor, he
should receive the payment.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties, concluded that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair in this particular case.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman