FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation Rights Commissioner Recommendation No's: r-064980-ir-08/GC and r-064981-ir-08/GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the workers in relation to Rights Commissioner Recommendation No's: r-064980-ir-08/GC and r-064981-ir-08/GC. The issues in dispute relate to the workers and a delay in their starting time which subsequently affects the beginning and calculation of bonus earnings. The workers contend that delays in having materials delivered to them effectively delays the commencement of their bonus earnings timeframe. The workers contend that the delivery driver always delivers materials to them at the end of his route which confers an advantage on those who receive their materials earlier.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Her Recommendation issued on 3rd December, 2009 and did not find in favour of the workers' claims on the basis that bonus earnings commence only when work begins and that the bonus scheme is applied equally to all Council employees across the County. The Rights Commissioner also recommended that management should continue to try and resolve the interpersonal difficulties between the workers and the delivery driver as this issue is considerred central to the entire dispute.
On the 13th January 2010, the workers appealed the Rights Comisioner's Recommendations in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 15th March, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers claim for loss of earnings is reasonable in the circumstances on the basis that their capacity to achieve bonus earnings is greatly reduced on the basis that, through no fault of their own, they are unable to start their work until later than other workers employed at other locations.
2 The workers are no longer rostered on the Council's larger pot holing machinery as a result of the Council's actions in separating them from the delivery driver. This has further affected their earnings potential and is effectively a disciplinary sanction for raising the grievance in the first place.
3 The real case at issue is the loss of earnings potential and not the perceived interpersonal difficulties between the workers and the delivery driver. There were attempts to resolve these difficulties but these were ultimately unsuccessful as the driver did not want to partake in the mediation process.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The bonus scheme only begins when the task actually begins. It is wholly inappropriate to claim a loss of earnings in circumstances where no loss of earnings actually occurred.
2 Management attempted to provide an independent mediator to deal with the interpersonal difficulties between the workers and the driver but this was not accepted by the workers.
3 It appears that the delivery delays have not impacted on the earnings ofthe workers as they are among the top 55 earners out of approximately 140 workers who received bonus payments in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.
DECISION:
It is noted that the bonus scheme operates on the basis that for the purpose of measuring the level of productivity achieved down-time is disregarded. Accordingly delays in the delivering materials, to which the dispute relates, did not affect the bonus earnings in respect of the time during which the bonus scheme operated.
The scheme does not provide for the payment of bonus in respects of down-time. Given the nature of the work involved some element of down-time is inevitable. While the issue before the Court undoubtedly has its origin in a personal dispute between individuals this is not a basis upon which the court could recommend compensation for loss of bonus earnings during down-time in circumstances in which the scheme makes no provision for such payments.
The Court would urge all parties to try to resolve the underlying issue between the claimant and their colleague. However, for the reasons referred to, the Court cannot see a basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th April 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.