FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR84046/09/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim that the Worker's rate of pay should be increased to reflect the extra duties he carries out. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 29th July, 2010 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “... I recommend that Shannon Foynes Port Company should now agree to pay [the Worker], on an ex gratia and "without precedent" basis, a once-off lump sum of €3,000 and that [the Worker] and SIPTU should accept this payment in full and final settlement of this claim. The parties should also agree to meet at an early date to clarify any outstanding issues regarding [the Worker's] duties and responsibilities ."
On the 26th August, 2010 the Worker 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 29thFebruary, 2012.
3. 1. The Worker has carried out the Coxswain's duties for many years.
2. The Worker should be paid the appropriate rate for carrying out the Coxswain's duties.
3.The Company has treated the Worker in an unfair manner.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The position of Coxswain was made redundant in February 2009.
2. The Company does not require the Worker, or any other General Operative, to carry out the Coxswain's duties.
3. The Company, therefore, believes that this claim has no merit.
DECISION:
The appeal before the Court of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation was made by the Union on behalf of a worker who sought an increase in his rate of pay to reflect the duties he carries out since the position as Coxswain was made redundant. The Appellant provided cover for the Coxswain whenever he was on leave and claimed that he should be entitled to paid for those duties when that role was vacated by the previous incumbent. To substantiate his claim he said that he holds a VHF Licence, he drives the boat, provides notification of shipping times and occasionally is required to take stern lines from a ship to shore.
The Company rejected the claim on the basis that in 2000 when pilotage duties were centralised at Cappa in Kilrush and removed from Foynes, Coxswain duties were no longer required. However, the role was not made redundant until 2009 and in the meantime the Claimant and his colleagues provided cover for the Coxswain when he was on leave. From 2000 the Coxswain’s duties changed significantly, however, he retained his rate of pay on a personal-to-holder basis.
The Court concurs with the views of the Rights Commissioner that there was a certain lack of consultation with the Claimant on the consequences of the redundant Coxswain role and the Claimant’s expectations in that regard. The Court is satisfied that the general bulk of duties performed by the Coxswain had diminished with the elimination of pilotage duties at Foynes in 2000 and therefore there was no longer any requirement for this role.
The Court is of the view that among his range of duties the Claimant also carries out a small number of the duties not normally carried out by the other General Operatives or for which occasionally in his absence manning is brought in from Limerick. However, the Court does not accept that the level of these duties warrants a regrading to either a Coxswain grade or a hybrid grade as proposed by the Union.
In all the circumstances in line with the Recommendation made by the Rights Commissioner the Court recommends that a once-off lump sum of €5,000 should be paid to the Claimant in recognition of the lack of communication referred to above and his ongoing co-operation.
Therefore, the appeal is rejected and the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th March, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.