FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERFORD FOODS PLC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 558/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with the Company over driving duties for one of its members. It claims that the Company made conflicting promises to different employees concerning driving duties.
The employer rejects the Union's claims and states that it is abiding by a Company/Union agreement. In July, 1993, a bulk milk driving seniority list was drawn up and agreed to by both sides.
The Union does not accept that the list was agreed .
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 22nd of January, 1997 and the 13th of May, 1997. The following is the Rights Commissioner's recommendation:-
"I consider that the list should be determined on the basis
of seniority by way of service in the Company."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd of July, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Waterford on the 24th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union did not agree to the seniority list as claimed by the Company.
2. Some members did not see the seniority list. The workers did not regard it as part of the 3% under Clause 3 of the PESP.
3. The Company has created the current difficulty by giving conflicting commitments and agreements to those concerned.
4. The seniority list does not form part of any agreement. There are no signatures of acceptance appearing on that particular document. The Company should pay compensation to the worker concerned.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned in the dispute was never employed as a full-time driver.
2. To accede to this claim would disadvantage other employees who are senior to him.
3. The terms and conditions of employment of the claimant were that of a general worker with driving duties.
4. Concession of the claim would have knock-on effects for the Company.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties the Court finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th October, 1998______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.