Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95227 Case Number: AD9557 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW344/94 concerning a claim for compensation for the elimination of a position.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the manner in which the Company
suppressed the post here concerned left a lot to be desired and
was not conducive to the development and maintenance of good
industrial relations.
It is the view of the Court, however, that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation adequately dealt with the situation.
The appeal is therefore rejected.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95227 DECISION NO. AD5795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1969
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
CW344/94 concerning a claim for compensation for the elimination
of a position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of four workers for compensation following the Company's
decision to eliminate the position of stand-in chargehand in the
shipping section of the materials department. The Union claims
that the Company/Union agreement provides for the employment of
one chargehand and a stand-in chargehand in both the shipping and
stores sections. The Company's position is that the flexibility
clause in the 1993 agreement provides for the rotating of
supervisory personnel between the two sections, thus removing the
need for a second stand-in chargehand in the area.
Local level discussions took place but no agreement was reached
and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The rights Commissioner's
findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"FINDINGS:
There is no doubt that the Company failed to inform the employees
of the suppression of this position. I have studied the Agreement
and I find it difficult to reconcile the Company's interpretation
with what the Agreement states. Flexibility is not in question.
The Union argues that one of four people should be receiving the
standby differential and, therefore, compensation is merited. The
Company maintains that no employee has actually lost anything.
The Company had made a significant saving and one employee has had
a notional loss.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the Company offers and each of the four employees
concerned accept the sum of #200 in settlement of this dispute,
and on the understanding that this is without precedent to either
side and is not to be taken as a conclusive interpretation of the
Agreement"
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Union
to the Labour Court on 4th April, 1995 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 23rd May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is attempting to eliminate the position of
stand-in chargehand without agreement.
2. The Company advertised the position of stand-in
chargehand and received a number of applications from
workers employed in the shipping section.
Approximately 6 weeks after advertising the post, the
Company eliminated the position without consultation
with the workers concerned.
3. The Rights Commissioner in recommendation No. CW364/94
acknowledged that the Company's decision to suppress
the post was unreasonable.
4. The elimination of the position of stand-in chargehand
has resulted in substantial savings to the Company.
The workers concerned had an expectation of promotion.
In the circumstances the Union's claim for #650.00
compensation per worker is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is committed to total flexibility in the
materials section. It has crossed trained all
employees in the stores and shipping sections and has
paid the workers concerned a 3.5% technology payment
for the use of technology in the stores section.
2. The Union's contention that the workers concerned are
suitable candidates on the basis that they operated in
the stand-in chargehand position for short periods is
unacceptable. All employees who apply for vacant
positions are subjected to the Company's selection
process before any decision on suitability is taken.
If no suitable candidate is found internally, the
Company is free to recruit externally.
3. While the Company accepts that the vacancy was
advertised, the decision to amalgamate the 2 positions
was fully discussed with the Union. The Union's claim
for compensation resulted from the agreement to
amalgamate the two positions.
4. It is the Company's view that the perceived loss of
progression has or will have any significant impact on
the earnings of the workers concerned.
DECISION:
5. The Court finds that the manner in which the Company
suppressed the post here concerned left a lot to be desired and
was not conducive to the development and maintenance of good
industrial relations.
It is the view of the Court, however, that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation adequately dealt with the situation.
The appeal is therefore rejected.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
10th July, 1995 _______________
F.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman