Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95127 Case Number: AD9535 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MERCURY ENGINEERING LIMITED (ECA) - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal by Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation DC 150/94.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the
parties.
The Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings but
recommends that compensation payable by the Company should be
#500, paid as an ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement of
the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95127 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
MERCURY ENGINEERING LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
DC 150/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The workers concerned are employed by Mercury
Engineering (Sprinkler Division). Mercury Engineering
is engaged in the installation and service of sprinkler
systems in commercial buildings. There are 33 workers
employed in this division who are covered by the
Registered Employment Agreement/Construction Industry
(Wages and Condition of Employment). The workers (2)
were in receipt of a chargehand's allowance for a number
of years until they were "laid-off" on the 27th January,
1994 and 28th March, 1994 respectively. The workers
were re-employed but the allowance was discontinued.
The Union is claiming that the allowance should have
been paid when the workers were re-employed.
2. The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 19th
January, 1995 and recommended:-
"that the Company compensate the two workers for the
discontinuance of the chargehand rate on the basis
of their loss over a six month period".
(The workers were named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
3. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour
Court on the 22nd February, 1995. The Court heard the
appeal on the 22nd March, 1995 under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two workers concerned are employed by the Company as
maintenance fitters. They have worked for the Company
on a continuous basis over the years. They were laid-
off in 1994 but they were subsequently re-employed by
the Company. The workers were paid a premium rate per
hour because they acted as chargehand/foreman on some
jobs.
2. When the workers were re-employed in 1994 they were
informed by the Company that since they were not engaged
in chargehand/foreman work they would not receive the
premium rate. The Union has raised the matter both in
correspondence and through direct meetings with the
Company. The Company has made an offer of #300 by way
of compensation but this was rejected by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 2 workers concerned were in receipt of a
chargehand's allowance for a number of years until their
employment terminated on the 27th January, 1994 and 28th
March, 1994 respectively due to a shortage of work. The
workers were subsequently re-employed as tradesmen. No
allowance was paid to them for these duties. As the
employees concerned no longer had any supervisory duties
they were not entitled to the higher allowance.
Following discussions with the Union, the Company made
an offer of #300 to each employee as compensation for
the financial loss suffered. The Union and the
employees rejected the offer.
2. It is the Company's policy that the chargehand's and the
foreman's allowances are paid only to employees who take
on supervisory responsibilities. When these employees
were re-employed they were not given payment of
supervisory duties. In those circumstances, the
allowances were not appropriate. To continue to pay the
allowances to them when they did not have the extra
responsibilities would amount to a personal plus payment
for the individuals concerned. The employees concerned
are in receipt of the full pay supplement (#46.70) which
has been incorporated into the basic rate of pay. The
Company did its best to resolve the dispute. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld.
DECISION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the
parties.
The Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings but
recommends that compensation payable by the Company should be
#500, paid as an ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement of
the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman