FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 423/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a major investment/restructuring programme carried out by the Company, its distribution operation was contracted out and, in July, 1995, the transport employees were relocated into the factory. The dispute concerns one worker who had been a driver with the Company but who, due to domestic problems had taken up a position in the production area in December, 1992. (In similar circumstances, previously, he had moved from the transport area but subsequently returned there). He claimed that he should have been covered by the same compensation arrangements that applied to transport staff who were relocated in July, 1995. The Company rejected his claim on the grounds that the compensation was confined to the then current transport staff.
The dispute was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who, while sympathising with the claimant's position, recommended that his claim should fail.
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Court on the 10th of April, 1996. The Court heard the appeal on the 20th of May, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 23 years with the Company, the worker was employed in the transport section for 12 years and, as a driver, he earned the highest rate of pay and enjoyed other substantial benefits. Only because of severe domestic problems did he apply for relocation (the driving position required his being away from home overnight). He always considered driving to be his job and he intended to return to driving, as he had done previously, when circumstances permitted.
2. He was prevented from returning to the transport area due to the fact that when a worker relocates, he is required to remain in the new position for a fixed period of time. He also made attempts to swap jobs with another transport worker, which were unsuccessful.
3. The worker's circumstances are unique in that he was the person who would have been most likely to obtain a driver's job, had these jobs not been contracted out.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The compensation proposals specifically applied only to the then current employees in transport and not to any employee who left in the past, for whatever reason. The Company only accepted the proposals on the basis that they were confined to the immediate transport employees.
2. There is no possible comparison between the claimant's circumstances and those of the transport employees. He left the transport department of his own accord. Whilst the Company appreciates his difficulties, it does not alter the fact that he left of his own accord, to take up a position which suited his circumstances at the time. By contrast, the transport workers had to return to the factory for organisational reasons. They had to take up whatever jobs were available at the time, on any shift.
3. The Company cannot accept that it could be held responsible or liable in any way for an employee moving job for personal reasons.
4. Concession of the claim would give rise to other knock-on claims from employees who left of their own accord and other employees who were forced to leave for different reasons in the past.
DECISION:
Having considered the evidence and arguments made in this case, the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th May, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.