FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ULSTER BANK - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Ir 041/01/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 2 claims - one for a loss of overtime and one for disturbance money. The worker commenced employment with the Bank in February, 1986, in Sandyford and was initially employed as a printer. He worked a 39 hour week plus rostered overtime of 8-10 hours per week. In 1992, a new foreman was appointed and he made a decision to eliminate the rostered overtime. The worker concerned and a number of other employees involved in overtime claimed compensation for loss of overtime. A number of discussions took place and the case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission but the Bank refused to concede the claim. The reason it gave was that the "overtime book" was missing and the Union could not substantiate the claim. The overtime was resumed sometime afterward (probably within a year). The worker's claim is for the loss of overtime for the period in which it was stopped.
The operation in Sandyford closed at the end of 1996. The worker was relocated to Camden Street to work as a porter, carrying with him his printer rate of pay and conditions of employment. In Sandyford he had car parking and could leave home at 7.30 a.m. In Camden Street there was only street parking available, and in order to get this parking he had to leave home at 6.00 a.m. This routine continued for 3.5 years until he secured a car space. The worker is claiming compensation for the inconvenience caused to him as a result of losing his car parking space.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation is as follows:
"Having given careful consideration to this matter, and recognising that the worker feels personally aggrieved, I recommend that the Union accepts that the issues have been dealt with in the various arrangements agreed over the years."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation.)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of August, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank does not dispute that overtime was worked. It was regular and rostered and the worker lost approximately £60 - £80 per week as a result of it being stopped. The issue was not dealt with as the Rights Commissioner believes.
2. The move to Camden Street was the Bank's decision and it caused the worker considerable inconvenience. Car parking in Sandyford was part of his terms of employment and should have transferred with him when he moved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has not been able to substantiate its claim for loss of overtime. The Bank was under the impression that the claim had been withdrawn. The worker concerned was the only employee who pursued the claim.
2. The move to Camden Street was a collective agreement between the parties. A letter from the Union dated the 11th of November, 1999, stated that the claims had been withdrawn.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions and the information supplied following the hearing, finds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation reasonable in the circumstances of this case. The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th November, 2001______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.