FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : I.S. VARIAN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Worker for compensation for loss of earnings due to her redeployment on lower pay. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 13th January, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th June, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Worker's wages were reduced without her prior agreement.
2 The Worker's original work still exists and is being done by other staff on higher pay.
3 The Worker should be compensated for the loss of earnings and restored to her original work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Worker's previous role ceased to exist.
2 The Worker accepted altenative employment in the Company rather than redundancy.
3. The Worker accepted the alternative employment of the terms and conditions offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a worker employed on a part time basis, as a Wrapper until September 2010 when the role became redundant. As a result of an agreement with the Union, the Company agreed to retain the worker in employment due to her length of service. However, in January 2011, the claimant’s rate of pay was reduced to a Handler’s rate to reflect the duties required by the Company since the proposed redundancy. The Union submitted that there was no agreement on a reduction in her rate of pay and sought to retain her rate on a red circled basis.
The Company held the view that the agreement with the Union on redeployment facilitated the worker’s retention in employment but at a lower rate of pay. The Court accepts that this reflects the reality of the situation and accordingly does not find in favour of the Union's claim for the retention of her rate of pay on a red circled basis.
However, the Court notes that due to a fluctuation in the Company’s requirements there is occasionally a need for packing and wrapping duties to be carried out by all categories. In such circumstances full time workers are entitled to a higher rate on a daily basis where they work for a minimum of three hours at higher duties than those for which they are employed and on a weekly basis where they work a minimum of three days at those higher duties.
Therefore, the Court recommends that in the event that the claimant carries out higher duties she also should be paid at the higher rate on a pro rata basis to that paid to full time workers. The Court recommends that this formula should be implemented with immediate effect and furthermore that it should be applied backdated to 1st January 2011.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th June, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.