FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PROTIM ABRASIVES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-053198-ir-07/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed as a Warehouse Operative in the Cork depot of the Company. At the outset, his duties were a combination of warehousing, deliveries and merchandising. To allow him fulfil his work duties he was provided with a Company vehicle and allowed to take it home in the evenings and weekends for his own personal use. Subsequently another driver was recruited by the Company in 2003 which resulted in a change of role for the Worker, he was now operating almost full time in the warehouse and the driving element of his role was reduced to nil.
A dispute arose when the Worker became aware that his rate of pay had overtime lost parity with comparable staff in the Dublin depot. The Company indicated that they would be prepared to concede a higher basic rate if he were to return their vehicle which was costing them a considerable amount to service and maintain. The Worker rejected the proposal as he wished to continue using the vehicle for his own personal use.
The issue involves a claim by the Union. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th June, 2008, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I believe the difference at the time of the hearing was some €80 per week additional pay. This change should be noted in formal communication confirming his rate of pay and the status and quality of his role as per the current job description and that he maintains the parity as all of us would expect throughout his continued employment.
It is understood that the company vehicle is primarily a business entity and that there is no longer a business requirement as clearly indicated by the company and it should be agreed to be returned to the company. I would further recommend that the claimant receive a sum of €1,500.00, in compensation for this aspect of his complaint.
On the 14th July, 2008 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's 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 5th June, 2009.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Cork depot at Little Island Industrial Estate Cork is due to close with a loss of jobs as a consequence of the collapse of the building industry and now it cannot afford to pay the compensation as recommended by the Rights Commissioner in his Decision of the 4th June 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The news of closure came "like a bolt out of the blue" and after reflecting on the position as stated by the Company the Union have decided to withdraw their appeal.
DECISION:
At the Court hearing on 5th June, 2009 the Union withdrew its appeal. The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner therefore stands.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd July, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.