FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Loss of job. (2) Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1988 over 50 employees were made redundant from the Office of Public Works' (OPW's) Furniture Branch in Rialto. The claimant accepted a transfer to Dun Laoghaire as an alternative to being made redundant. The worker had received a differential for driving duties and had access to overtime in Rialto but neither was available to him in Dun Laoghaire. The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union submitted a claim for loss of earnings on behalf of the claimant and another worker. The issue was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on the 29th of July, 1988. The Court recommended that the Union take up the OPW's offer to negotiate a lump sum payment as compensation for the two workers concerned (LCR11997).
The claimant states that the other worker received compensation but that he was refused. In August, 1998, he referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 30th of October, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant objected to his transfer. He did not believe that his job was being made redundant as other staff replaced him. He was not made aware that he would lose his seniority at the new location.
2. The claimant was discriminated against in Dun Laoghaire with regard to promotion and overtime. He had to travel 12 miles to work each day. His working hours were changed, he was not permitted to work overtime and he was at the loss of his driving differential.
3. The other worker involved in the claim before the Labour Court in 1988 suffered less inconvenience and yet was paid one year's loss of earnings. The claimant was refused compensation at the time which, he believes, was due to a personality clash with the OPW representative.
OPW'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As the issue refers to a dispute which occurred ten years ago and the files are unavailable, it is not clear why compensation was paid to one worker and not to the other. The person who dealt with the matter has since retired.
2. Since October, 1998, OPW has made two offers of compensation to the claimant, both of which he refused without outlining his reasons for refusal. The offer to pay 12 months' loss of overtime and driving differential at today's rates is fair and reasonable and is in line with that paid to other claimants at the time.
3. The claimant was treated as fairly as possible. He could have accepted the redundancy package offered but chose to redeploy instead. After 18 months he secured a transfer to the Botanic Gardens which is closer to his home than Rialto. He has re-established himself as a driver and has access to overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claimant's case before the Court was for equal treatment with his colleague who was compensated by the OPW.
The Court is satisfied that he has now been offered compensation on a similar basis and, therefore, he has succeeded in his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th November, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.