Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95497 Case Number: AD9587 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SPS INTERNATIONAL HIGH LIFE TOOLS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST119/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds no
grounds have been adduced to warrant a change in the findings of
the Rights Commissioner.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Union.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95497 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SPS INTERNATIONAL HIGH LIFE TOOLS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation ST119/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures precision tools and employs
approximately 200 workers. The appeal concerns a worker who
commenced employment with the Company in 1968. In 1980 he
was appointed to the post of setter in the Thread Roll Die
Product Line and worked ten hour shifts Monday to Thursday
10.00 p.m. - 8.00 a.m. In 1995 management changed his roster
and he was appointed to a five night 8 hour shift pattern
Monday to Thursday 12.00 p.m. - 8.00 a.m. and Friday 10.00
p.m. - 5.00 a.m. The Union claimed compensation for the
change. The Company made an offer of £3,000 gross. It was
rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the
17th July, 1995 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"Other employees have settled their claims for much less
than what is now claimed by the Union. The Company has
made an offer which has been rejected and I must have
regard to precedence when making a recommendation.
Nevertheless I have to recognise the fact that the
claimant has suffered considerable disruption to a life
style he has enjoyed since 1981 and in these latter
circumstances I recommend that the Company increases its
last offer by £500 in full and final settlement.'
On the 25th August,1995 the union appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Limerick
on the 7th December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker objected to the new shift as he had worked
the Monday to Thursday roster for many years. However,
he has had no option but to work the roster. The new
shift has meant a significant change to this work
pattern. He has suffered a substantial curtailment to
his long established free time, through the loss of a
free Friday night every week. In addition he will
continue to incur additional costs in travelling to
work.
2. While the Company contends that there is a precedent for
the amount of compensation, the Union cannot accept that
precedent exists. It was not party to discussion or
agreement with other individual workers who transferred
shift.
3. The increase of £500 recommended by the Rights
Commission does not bring the compensation award to a
level which the Union sees as equitable. In view of the
considerable disruption to the worker's lifestyle, both
domestic and social brought about by the loss of a free
Friday night each week, the compensation award should be
in the region of £4,000 after tax is deducted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Thread Roll Die Department has undergone significant
capital investment in recent years. Market conditions
require that a 24 hour shift operates making 10 hour
shifts redundant. The Company should not be penalised
for their absolute need to change in response to market
focus and their requirement to maximise utilisation to
cover heavy capital expenditure.
2. The Company has offered the worker a very reasonable
level of compensation. It was accepted by three fellow
employees in 1995. The worker has suffered no loss of
earnings as a result of his move to the 5 shift system
and has in fact enhanced his overtime earnings.
3. It is in accordance with the Company/Union Agreement and
the claimant's conditions of employment for management
to change shift patterns without any form of monetary
compensation. Nevertheless the Company is prepared to
pay compensation and is also prepared to adhere to the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation for an additional
£500.
DECISION:
The Court, having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds no
grounds have been adduced to warrant a change in the findings of
the Rights Commissioner.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman