Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95693 Case Number: AD9620 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEO LABORATORIES (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW162/95.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by both
sides the Court finds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95693 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2096
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LEO LABORATORIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW162/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns two workers who are employed by the
Company primarily as boilermen. Over the years they have
also provided cover to workers in the engineering stores when
these workers were on annual leave, sick leave etc.
Following a reorganisation of the duties of the engineering
stores branch the requirement for the two workers concerned
to cover overtime in that area was significantly reduced.
The Union sought compensation on behalf of the two workers
for the loss of overtime which they had worked in the
engineering stores area. Management rejected the claim. The
dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 16th November, 1995
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"I recommend that the Union accepts that no compensation
is payable in this instance".
On the 11th December, 1995 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The court
heard the appeal on the 14th February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two workers concerned provided cover for the
engineering stores and worked substantial amounts of
overtime in that area. At the time of the
reorganisation the workers gave significant co-operation
to the Company relating to the smooth operation of the
new working arrangements. Management indicated that
neither worker would suffer a loss as a result of the
new arrangements.
2. The Company did not honour its commitments to the
workers to specifically address the loss of overtime in
the engineering stores area and the amount of overtime
now available in the engineering stores is minimal.
3. Although the two employees have worked overtime in other
areas the Union contends that there is a clear
quantifiable loss in their overtime earnings when
increases in rates of pay under the various wage
agreements are taken into account (details supplied to
the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of reorganisation the Company gave a
commitment to the two workers to consider the question
of compensation payments should the reduction in
engineering stores cover on overtime lead to a
demonstrable loss of earnings. However, the Company
failed to find any evidence of loss. The Company
prepared a detailed analysis in respect of the overtime
and total earnings of both claimants. The analysis
shows an upward trend in their earnings and no evidence
of loss.
2. It is Company policy to pay compensation where, through
reorganisation or changes in work practices, industrial
workers suffer a loss of earnings. Many such claims
have been paid in the past. In the case of the two
workers concerned no loss of overtime earnings has
occurred and their overtime earnings continue at a high
level.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by both
sides the Court finds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13 March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. ________________
Deputy Chairman