Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95405 Case Number: AD9582 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PENN RACQUET SPORTS (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW304/94.
Recommendation:
Given the changes to work pattern which had to be undertaken by
the individual concerned, the Court is not satisfied that the
application of the formula was appropriate in this case.
Therefore, the Court allows the appeal by the Union and recommends
that a sum of £2,000 in compensation be paid.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95405 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8295
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
PENN RACQUET SPORTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW304/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures high quality tennis balls for the
domestic and European market, and has been in operation in
Mullingar since 1974. The dispute arose following a decision
by the Company to transfer a craft worker from rotating shift
to day shift. The Union claims that due regard was not given
to the worker's seniority and that the compensation offer of
13 weeks' loss of earnings was insufficient. The Company's
position was that the compensation was reasonable and was
compatible with the formula applied elsewhere within the
Company in similar circumstances. The dispute was referred
to a Rights Commissioner who carried out his investigation on
the 22nd of June, 1995. He stated that he was satisfied with
the practice within the Company and found that, in the
absence of agreement among the fitters on shift work, it was
reasonable for the employer to require the claimant to move
to day work as he was the fitter with the shortest service on
the shift work.
The Rights Commissioner noted that the formula for
compensation to the worker was "somewhat below other
settlements elsewhere" but that the formula had been applied
to another employee within the Company. In his
Recommendation, he upheld the actions and offers of the
Company. The Union appealed the Recommendation, on the 5th
of July, 1995, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal,
in Mullingar, on the 15th of November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed in 1979 and was on night shift
for 8 months, followed by 3 years on rotating shift.
From 1983 to 1991 he was on day shift. He was then
compelled by management to return to rotating shift,
causing him considerable upheaval in his personal and
family life (details supplied to the Court). Then, in
October, 1994, he was required to return to day work,
despite the fact that he was the most senior maintenance
fitter of the group concerned. Accordingly, his
seniority was not taken into consideration in the
decision to change his shift.
2. The selection procedure was unreasonable in that the
worker who was selected for transfer was the fitter with
the greatest overall service, even though he had the
least service on shift. The worker has suffered
considerable financial hardship arising from the
transfer of shift (details supplied to the Court). The
payment of 13 weeks' loss of earning is unsatisfactory
in the circumstances.
3. Other comparable employments have given considerably
better compensation to workers in similar situations
(details supplied to the Court).
4. At the time of the worker's transfer to day shift, he was
not represented by the Union and was not in a position
to negotiate reasonable compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The fitters were approached and asked to agree between
themselves which of them would move to day shift.
Agreement was not reached and, accordingly, management
decided to transfer the fitter on shift work with the
lowest service. This selection procedure operated was
reasonable in the circumstances.
2. Shift working is not, nor was it ever, guaranteed.
3. There is a precedent of 13 weeks' compensation payable
in the Company to a worker transferred in similar
circumstances, a point which was noted by the Rights
Commissioner.
4. The Company offer is reasonable in view of the fact that
the worker has been on shift only since 1991, having
worked for the previous 10 years on days.
5. The formula for compensation applied is not ungenerous.
In LCR12079, the Labour Court endorsed the exact some
formula.
DECISION:
Given the changes to work pattern which had to be undertaken by
the individual concerned, the Court is not satisfied that the
application of the formula was appropriate in this case.
Therefore, the Court allows the appeal by the Union and recommends
that a sum of £2,000 in compensation be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th November, 1995 Evelyn Owens
M.K./D.T. ---------------
Chairman