FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN PLAYER & SONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for loss of regular set overtime (R.S.O.)
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was engaged in the primary and secondary processing of tobacco products at its original plant in South Circular Road, Dublin. The Company has relocated to Newpark - Parkwest and one of it's core functions, namely the processing of tobacco (aka primary), has been removed. Two employees were transferred from the 'primary' area, at the behest of the Company, on medical grounds. This occurred some time prior to the relocation of the Company to Newpark.
The two employees in question received a buy-out of their regular set overtime (R.S.O.) at the time of transferal. The Union are now seeking to have an improved buy-out formula applied retrospectively to these workers.
Local discussions could not resolve the issues. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of October, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of January, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were part of the original group transferred on closure of the 'primary' department.
2. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of all those relocating to Newpark.
3. The Union understood, and signed off, on an agreement that indicated retrospective inclusion of these workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company contend that the agreement reached with the workers on transferal from the 'primary' department dealt with their claim in full.
2. The agreement with the workers was reached six months before the relocation project was finalised.
3. The Company rejects the Union contention that a letter of the 19th September, 2002 confers a right to seek improvements on foot of a general claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the parties were at cross purposes in relation to their discussions on the 19th of September, 2002 in that they genuinely came away with different understandings of what was agreed. The Court is, however, influenced by the fact that both claimants would have been part of the move to Newpark and on that account would have qualified for the higher R.S.O. had they not been relocated on health grounds. The Court is further influenced by the fact that concession of the claim would have no knock-on effects.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Union's claim should be conceded in respect of the two individual claimants. This recommendation is made on the basis of the peculiar circumstances of this case and on the understanding that it will not be relied upon or quoted as a precedent in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th January, 2004______________________
M.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.