Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94671 Case Number: AD9517 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: C.M.P. DAIRY - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. GC47/94, concerning a claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given carefully consideration to all the points
made by the parties including the extensive verbal submission from
the appellant.
In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is not unreasonable.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94671 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: C.M.P. DAIRY
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
GC47/94, concerning a claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker has been employed by the Company since 1974/75.
For most of the time he has worked as a checker/dispatcher in
the dispatch/coldroom section. The worker received
approximately #50 extra per week in his capacity as a
checker/dispatcher - a total of #242.12 per week. Basic rate
for a general operative is #192.94 per week.
2. In 1993/94 the Company introduced a rationalisation plan
which included the appointment of a dispatch controller to
whom the worker was responsible. Part of the worker's duties
included overseeing the transfer of production to stock and
the issuing of stock with regard to the potted products
section (yogurts, desserts, cheese etc).
3. The Company claims that the worker was not capable of
carrying out his duties and that he should revert back to
working as a general operative in the plant. He would lose
his #50 per week checker/dispatcher allowance. The Company
offered the worker two year's loss of earnings as
compensation. The worker is seeking redundancy or three
years' loss of earnings plus #10,000 lump sum.
4. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 14th October, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:-
"Having listened to the verbal submissions (and a written
submission from the worker) in addition to private
discussions with both Parties, I am happy that the Company
has valid reasons for doubting the worker's competency as a
Checker. The alleged mistakes may have resulted from the fact that the
worker had not worked in the area for some time and the fact
that new Systems and Procedures had been introduced may also
have been a contributory factor.
As no Redundancy situation exists and manning levels have
been agreed, the worker's claim for a redundancy package
cannot be entertained by the Company. On the issue of
Compensation, I cannot interfere with the Agreement already
in place between the Union and the Company. I therefore
recommend that the worker accepts a two year buy out of his
loss of earnings.
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 15th
November, 1994, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th February,
1995, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work of the checker/dispatcher has increased
considerably since the introduction of the Company's
rationalisation plan. A number of different jobs have
been amalgamated. The worker was never trained to do
this increased workload.
2. Whatever mistakes the worker made were as a result of the
extra work. He had not worked in the dispatch/coldroom
section for approximately a year. He returned to the
section after the amalgamation of the different jobs had
taken place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not capable of performing his duties as
required. Incorrect stock figures and production figures
were being recorded. This led to disruptions and
additional costs to the Company.
2. There is a Company/Union agreement regarding compensation
for loss of earnings. The Company cannot pay more than
the offer of two years loss. A redundancy situation does
not exist in the Company.
DECISION:
5. The Court has given carefully consideration to all the points
made by the parties including the extensive verbal submission from
the appellant.
In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is not unreasonable.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
28th February, 1995 --------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman