Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95710 Case Number: AD9622 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NAVAN CARPETS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC265/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all the information before it, finds
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is 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 Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95710 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2296
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
NAVAN CARPETS LIMITED
(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. DC265/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with
the Company in 1969. For over twenty years he worked
compulsory overtime amounting to one hour per day five days a
week. In 1995 the worker was transferred to the post of
Laboratory Technician. The Company maintained that the
requirement for the five hours overtime no longer existed.
The Company offered lump sum compensation to the worker. The
Union claimed that the employee's workload had increased and
he should be on a higher rate of pay. The Union also claimed
substantial compensation in respect of the worker's loss of
earnings. Agreement could not be reached at local level
discussions and the dispute was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the
10th November, 1995 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"There are two essential elements of this claim i.e.
compensation for loss of overtime working and the
claimant's job content and grading and I therefore
intend to address them separately.
With regard to the proposed reduction in the worker's
working week as there was no evidence that this is not
attainable and feasible I recommend that the claimant's
attendance hours be revised to 36 hours per week with
effect from a date to be mutually agreed between the
parties subsequent to this recommendation but certainly
not later than 1st February, 1996. On the question of
compensation, as in my view, the Company's proposal is
somewhat protracted and unwieldy, I therefore recommend
that it be revised to their original offer i.e. an
ex-gratia lump sum equivalent to 26 times the worker's
weekly loss, to be paid immediately following the date
of termination of the overtime working.
With regard to the claimant's grading and work content,
whilst it is evident his job has changed to some degree
it is impossible to assess whether or not it now carries
sufficient additional responsibility to justify a salary
increase especially against a back drop of
rationalisation in which other workers have been
subjected to similar change. Consequently as I cannot
find any substantive grounds to justify this element of
the claim I must therefore recommend that it fails.
I further recommend however, given the nature of the
clerical grade salary structures and the absence of any
agreed internal evaluation mechanisms for assessing the
merits of such applications, both parties should
mutually examine the possibility of introducing an
appropriate procedure in that regard for the future."
(The worker was named in the recommendation.)
On the 12th December, 1995 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on the 22nd February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The loss of overtime earnings amounts to approximately
£40 per week. As the worker had seniority in the
employment he need not have moved to the new post and
agreed to do so to oblige the Company. The worker did
not anticipate that, in agreeing to the move, he would
suffer a substantial loss of earnings.
2. Despite the worker taking a reduction of approximately
20% in pay his workload has increased by approximately
20% (details supplied to the Court).
3. Originally the claimant was involved together with
another worker in the claim. She was on the same rate
of pay and hours of work. She was made two subsequent
offers and is now on a rate of £45.50 per week more than
the claimant.
4. The Company is trading satisfactorily and expects
substantial growth in 1996. It should reward the
claimant by increasing his salary in recognition of the
extra workload and pay him substantial compensation for
the overtime worked over many years. The claim will not
result in repercussive claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's business is very competitive and has
undergone a very severe recession. Management has been
forced to implement a rationalisation programme
including redundancies, redeployments, increased
workloads, flexibilities etc. without increases in pay.
2. The worker has been required to undertake new
duties/responsibilities as well as retaining some of his
original duties to be undertaken within a reduced
working week. This is done in the context of the
Company's rationalisation plan. It is imperative that
the objectives of this programme are implemented in
order to return the Company to profitability.
3. The Company has offered the worker compensation as
follows:-
(i) 39 hours basic + (3 hours overtime X 1.5) from
1/6/95 to 31/12/95,
(ii) 36 hours basic + (3 hours overtime X 1.5) from
1/1/96 to 31/5/96,
(iii) Thereafter - 36 hours per week.
This offer is an increase in the original Company offer
and in the context of the Company's financial position
is a very reasonable one.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all the information before it, finds
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is 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
26th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D/D.T. ________________
Deputy Chairman