Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95721 Case Number: AD9615 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SMURFIT WEB PRESS (Represented by THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation ST301/95.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all aspects of the case finds no
grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the Union appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95721 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1596
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SMURFIT WEB PRESS
(Represented by The Irish Printing Federation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation ST301/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with the
Company in 1971 and was employed on day work in the Bindery
Department. Following the loss of a major contract the Company
implemented a restructuring programme at the end of 1994 which
resulted in a number of redundancies. As part of the restructuring
the worker concerned was transferred to the Litho Department which
operates on a three-shift basis. The Union claimed that the worker
was entitled to the Litho Department de-manning allowance.
Management rejected the claim.
3. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 15th December, 1995 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"I am conscious that up to fifty jobs were lost in the Company
when the Phone Book Contract from Telecom was lost to the
U.K. The claimant currently enjoys a rate of £285.56
exclusive of shift premium and that is not bad when
compared with the fate of some of his former colleagues.
Nevertheless I do not wish to see the valiant efforts of the
Union Official on his behalf come to nothing and accordingly,
I recommend that he receives the sum of £500 in full and
final settlement of all his claims. This sum to be paid by
the Employer without precedent or prejudice".
4. On the 19th December, 1995 the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on
the 30th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5 1. The practice and precedent existing within the Company
provides that a worker moving from one department to
another retains his/her rate and is paid the appropriate
rate of the department to which he/she is moving.
2. The 1991 agreement provides that any worker moving into
the Litho Department would receive a de-manning
allowance.
3. If the worker currently employed in the Bindery
Department was to move to the Litho Department he would
receive the de-manning rate while retaining the Bindery
allowance. This practice should also apply to the
claimant.
4. Craftworkers receive the appropriate allowances
negotiated by agreements. There is no reason why the
workers represented by this Union cannot be treated in
similar fashion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The 1981 agreement on de-manning was intended to apply
only to employees working in the Litho Department at that
time. Since then any workers coming into the Litho
Department have been excluded from the de-manning
allowance. The Unions have a clear understanding of how
the agreement is operated.
2. From time to time employees have requested details of the
breakdown of their remuneration and no queries have been
raised regarding a de-manning allowance. The method of
implementation of the agreement has never been challenged
at either branch or local level.
3. The worker concerned has higher earnings in the Litho
Department than he enjoyed in the Bindery Department and
the Company has undertaken to ensure that his pay will
not fall below the rate that is applicable in the Bindery
Department.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all aspects of the case finds no
grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the Union appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th March, 1996 Finbar Flood
T.O'D/U.S. ------------
Deputy Chairman