FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PRINTCRAFT COMPUTER PRINT (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR753/98/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company prints and binds computer manuals for the software industry. It is a member of the Irish Printing Federation and, as such, it is subject to the Registered Employment Agreement (R.E.A.) for the industry.
The Union's appeal is on behalf of a worker who has been employed by the Company since 1987. She is a qualified journeywoman and folding machine operator. She worked as a supervisor on day work until 1995 when she was required to work shift. In 1997 she informed the Company that she had been offered a job with another company on day work and she gave the Company two weeks' notice. The Company then offered the employee a day job in its CD Cell section. On the 15th of September, 1998, in accordance with the Registered Employment Agreement, the Company gave the employee two weeks' notice that she was to commence shift work on the 28th of September, 1998. Upon her refusal to work shift the Company suspended her. The employee has since resigned from the Company.
The Union referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioners' service for investigation. The Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation on the 21st of April, 1999, as follows:-
"I recommend that (the worker) accepts the requirement to go onto shift work and the Company offers and she accepts two weeks' pay in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 11th of May, 1999, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 22nd of June, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In both the Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation he focused almost exclusively on the obligations on the employee arising from the Registered Employment Agreement. However, the Agreement states that "no strike or lock-out or any other form of coercive action shall take place until the dispute has been submitted for settlement by negotiation....". Although the Union had informed the Company on the 21st of September, 1998, that it would refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner, the Company suspended the worker on the 28th of September, 1998.
2. Both the Company and the worker voluntarily entered an agreement in 1997 that the worker would be employed on day work. This persuaded the worker to remain with the Company. Management was aware at the time of the difficulties that she had been experiencing with shift work. The agreement should not have been considered a temporary arrangement for as long as it was convenient to the Company.
3. In 1998 the worker applied for the Company's voluntary redundancy package. Her application was declined but she was assured that her position on day work would continue. The worker's suspension has resulted in a loss of earnings and, through sheer economic pressure, she was forced to resign. The worker should receive compensation for her lost earnings and should be given the voluntary severance terms which were given to some of her colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant, and several of her colleagues, were facilitated with day work in the CD Cell. No commitment was given that they would remain on days for all time.
2. The worker was allowed to retain her shift premium when she was employed on day work. There were no negotiations to change the value of her remuneration. This implied that, at some stage, she would be required to again engage in double day shift.
3. The claimant contends that her status had changed to that of permanent day worker. However, she did not query the fact that she was in receipt of a shift differential. She was also one of the claimants who was seeking compensation for the removal of Company transport for shift workers.
4. Due to business demands the entire CD Cell was required to commence double day shift. If the Company does not respond to customer needs, the business will go elsewhere. In accordance with the terms of the R.E.A., the worker was given two weeks' notice to commence shift work. She was treated no less favourably than her colleagues. Her application for redundancy was rejected as the Company needed, and continues to need, qualified folding operators. It is extremely difficult to recruit qualified journeywomen.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to all of the factors in this case, and in particular to the detail submitted by the appellant herself during the course of the hearing, the Court determines the Rights Commissioner's decision should be amended as follows:
a lump sum equal to 4 weeks' pay should be paid to the appellant.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th July, 1999.______________________
DG/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.