FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS ATHA CLIATH - DUBLIN BUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR15118/03/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 2002, a vacancy for a maintenance Shift Supervisor arose in Summerhill garage. The worker concerned was deemed to be the most junior employee available and he was moved from Ringsend to Summerhill. A productivity deal with supervisors had taken place in 2000 in regard to reducing the number of supervisory staff, and it was agreed that compensation would take place in the event of employees being moved. In this case the worker received €2,313 gross payment. He also, along with two other supervisors in Ringsend , received a compensation of €2,680.20 for a reduction in Sunday shift work. The worker subsequently claimed an additional payment of €2,500, this being the amount that was offered to a number of craftworkers in Ringsend for implementing changes in work practices / covering new shifts. The Company believes that the worker was fully compensated for the move to Summerhill.
- The Union referred the case to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation, dated 6th of April, 2005, was as follows:
- "Having carefully considered the submission as presented by the claimant and his representative and based on this uncontested evidence I am of the opinion that the worker has a valid complaint.
I recommend therefore that the worker should be in receipt of a compensatory sum based on the following :
- €889.00 for the first ten years of service, €89.00 per subsequent year, which I believe to be 16, giving a figure of €1,424.00 and a total figure of
€2,313.00 plus the agreed €2,680 for the reduction in Sunday work. This should all total €4,993.20.
- In addition to this as a once off non-precedent setting payment based on a personal issue for the worker that an additional €3,000 be added to this compensation figure.
This takes the total according to my reckoning to €7,993.20 as the full figure to be awarded to the worker, inclusive of any payments made to date."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.)
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 18th of April, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of July 2005.UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) The worker did not ask to be transferred to Summerhill. The result has been a major disruption for him, including having to work different shift patterns. The impact on him has been much greater than on any other supervisor or craftworker.(2) The worker has been treated less favourably than other grades who have been rewarded for undertaking an in-house transfer onto another shift whilst remaining in their current location.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. (1) The €2,500 relates to changes in craftworkers' duties in Ringsend. They were not subject to the supervision agreement and the proposed payment was offered as part of a separate agreement with this grade.(2) The offer was only made to craftworkers directly affected by the changes. None of the Ringsend supervisors received such a payment. The worker concerned is not involved in any of the changes and, indeed, is now based in Summerhill.
DECISION:
The Company failed to attend the hearing before the Rights Commissioner for reasons which were explained to the Court.
Having had the benefit of hearing the submissions of both parties, the Court is satisfied that the claimant was compensated for the transfer at issue in full compliance with the terms of the agreement between the Company and his Union. The Court does not accept that the arrangements entered into with another group of employees, which did not relate to transfers, can provide a justifiable basis for reopening the terms of the agreement.
Since the Court is satisfied that the claimant was paid the level of compensation to which he was entitled, the award recommended by the Rights Commissioner cannot stand. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner be set aside.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th August, 2005______________________
CON/PCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.