Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95162 Case Number: AD9538 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GOOD GIRLS PRODUCTIONS - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 177/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
the parties, finds no grounds to warrant amending the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and uphold the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court further recommends that, given the changing nature of
the Film Industry, individual contracts entered into should be
clearly understood by the parties and that any subsequent change
to the contracts should be clearly communicated.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95162 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
GOOD GIRLS PRODUCTIONS
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 177/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose following a claim by the Union for
compensation for one worker, an electrician, who allegedly
suffered losses, due to the cancellation of a 'night-shoot'
in May, 1994. The matter was investigated by a Rights
Commissioner who recommended that the electrician be paid the
amount that he would have earned that night (#550) less the
#81.36 which he had already been paid by the Company in
respect of the loss of one day's pay. The Company appealed
the Recommendation stating that it had not received
notification of the Rights Commissioner's investigation and
that it had, therefore, not attended. The appeal was lodged
with the Court on the 28th of February, 1995, in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on the 24th of April, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The electrician, having been nominated by the Union, was
contacted by the Company regarding work on the night-
shoot, as originally scheduled. He was, however,
unavailable for work at that time. When the shoot was
re-scheduled, annother electrician, whom it was known
was available, was employed. In the meantime, the
electrician originally chosen was contacted by the Union
for the re-shoot and, apparently, turned down other work
following this contact.
2. A cancellation fee of one day's pay was issued by cheque
to the electrician. At no time between the cancellation
of the booking and the electrician being informed that
the cheque was issued and posted, was the Company made
aware that the matter was in dispute.
3. From the time of issue of the cancellation cheque in
May, 1994, to February, 1995, nothing was heard by the
Company regarding the dispute, until the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was received. The Company
was not given an opportunity to send a representative to
the hearing on the 3rd of February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the cancellation, the job in question was
subsequently done by a second electrician. However, in
accordance with the Agreement reached with the Company
in respect of crewing, as outlined in the Company's
letter of 18th March, 1994, (details supplied), the
original electrician was nominated by the Union and,
therefore, should have been employed for the night-shoot
when it was eventually shot.
2. The Company paid a cancellation fee of one day's pay
amounting to #81.36 to the electrician and the Union
contends that, in accordance with the general terms and
conditions of employment of the T.E.E.U., (details
supplied) which were agreed with the Company, he would
be entitled to a payment totalling #550. This would
include payment for 16 hours at the rate of #12.50 per
hour for the lead-in and lead-out payments, and 14 hours
at #25 for the hours which he would have worked if he
had been employed on the shoot. As a result of his
accepting the job, the worker had declined an offer of
two weeks' work on another film.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
the parties, finds no grounds to warrant amending the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and uphold the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court further recommends that, given the changing nature of
the Film Industry, individual contracts entered into should be
clearly understood by the parties and that any subsequent change
to the contracts should be clearly communicated.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman