FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HAMMOND LANE METAL COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-108664-ir-11/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the decision to withdraw from the Workers the use of a Company vehicle to travel to and from work. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 28th October, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “The respondent is within its rights under the provisions of the various National Agreements to insist on the claimant's co-operation in this matter other than in those exceptional circumstances, which have been provided for. Consequently, I recommend that the claimant comply with the legitimate request of the respondent forthwith”.
On the 10th November, 2011 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 26th April,2012.
3. 1. The Workers have had the benefit of a Company vehicle since commencing their employment.
2. The Workers both spent significant sums of money on ensuring the Company vehicles was securely parked at their homes overnight.
3.The Workers should be compensated for the loss of this benefit.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was advised by its insurance provider that it would no longer insure Company vehicles which were not parked overnight on Company premises.
2. The practise of taking Company vehicles home, which was a work practice and not a term and condition of employment, was accordingly discontinued.
3. This dispute was settled as part of agreement which resulted in the payment of a lump-sum.
DECISION:
It is clear to the Court that the parties to the national agreement of April 2010 had different understandings of the scope of what was agreed. The Company believes that the present claim was comprehended by that agreement. The Union believes that the claim was unaffected by the national agreement.
The Court fully accepts that both sides hold these beliefs bona fide. However, in seeking to resolve this difference the Court can only have regard to what is recorded writing by the parties. The written record of the agreement does not support the Company's contention that the present claim was disposed of in that agreement.
The Court believes that the discontinuance of the facility to use company transport to travel to and from work did result in additional and unexpected expense to the two claimants. It is the view of the Court that the claim should be resolved by the payment to each of the claimants of€500. This should be accepted by the Union in full and final settlement of the claims.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th May, 2012______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.