FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRALCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Restoration of attendance bonus
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of approximately 260 workers and concerns the nonpayment of an attendance bonus as a result of an unofficial stoppage on the 21st of January, 2002. The reason for the stoppage was that the Company had decided to discontinue the payment of "dirty money" to workers in the polishing room as the room had been dismantled. On the morning of 21st of January, 2002, 260 workers stopped work for 3.5 hours. As a result, the Company deducted 3.5 hours' pay and this affected payment of the attendance bonus. (The Company reinstated payment of the dirty money and it continues to be paid, pending a resolution).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of March, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of August, 2003, in Athlone, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reason for the work stoppage was that the Company deducted money from the workers in the polishing room without any explanation or discussion. This was contrary to an agreement reached at the Labour Relations Commission in 1998.
2. The Union put forward alternative proposals on the morning of the 21st of January, 2002. The Company rejected the proposals at that time but accepted them in the afternoon. The workers concerned were not told to stop working by the shop stewards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The polishing room was no longer being used by January, 2002, so payment of "dirty money" was not warranted.
2. The Union did not give notice of the work stoppage, it did not ballot its members or adhere to normal dispute resolution procedures. The stoppage caused serious disruption and loss of production of revenue. The reduction of the attendance bonus was a reasonable response.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is, in reality, for the payment of an element of remuneration in respect of a period in which the claimants were engaged in unofficial industrial action. Having regard to well established principles of good industrial relations such a claim could not be entertained.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th September, 2003______________________
CO'N/BGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.