FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MERCURY ENGINEERING (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR18617/04/LM.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment on the 13th April, 1973. He was promoted to the position of foreman in 1980. In November, 2003 the worker was demoted to the position of electrician. This resulted in a reduction in his hourly rate of pay by €3.61. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th October, 2004 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows;
"The claimant's salary to be re-instated to the foreman's rate without setting precedent.
The claimant to be paid by the company €7,000 loss to him since November, 2003.
The provision with the Registered Agreement with regard to the continuation of charge hand rate 2(c) to be referred to the NJIC."
On the 8th November, 2004 the Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 10th February, 2005.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to a downturn in business the Company was forced to re-grade foremen and chargehands to electricians, including the claimant. Approximately 50 foremen and chargehands lost their premia. In implementing this decision the Company relied on Clause 2(d) of the REA.
2. The Company discussed the option of redundancy with the claimant but agreement could not be reached on a severance package.
3. The Company did not give the claimant a commitment that his foreman's premium would never be removed.
4. The Company treated the claimant fairly and has acted within the terms of the REA for the industry.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company took a unilateral decision to demote the claimant. It did not employ any existing Company procedures in its dealings with the worker.
2. During his long service in the Company as a foreman the claimant undertook various posts of responsibility and demonstrated flexibility at all times.
3. Other workers in the Company with less service than the claimant were retained as foremen.
4. The claimant was not afforded the opportunity to dispute or appeal the Company decision. He was not given an opportunity to present his case to the Company.
DECISION:
The Court has considered at length the submissions of both patties. It is the decision of the Court, bearing in mind the unique circumstances of this case, that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th July, 2005______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.