FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Removal of Standing Up Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a claim for compensation for the discontinuation of a "standing up" allowance that was paid between 2007 and 2011. The Union is seeking compensation of two and a half times the annual loss of earnings. The Company rejects the Union's claim on the basis that the workers knew that there would be changes as a result of the restructuring plan and the supervisory position would no longer exist. The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 15th November 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th January 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The payment of the allowance was in place for in excess of four years and formed a considerable part of the worker's earnings during that time. The worker's have incurred significant losses of income since the cessation of the allowance and are seeking the appropriate level of compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company does not accept that the payment of compensation is appropriate. The allowance is no longer payable as there is no need for the workers in question to act in the supervisory role following the restructuring.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by four employees for compensation for loss of a “Standing-up Allowance” which commenced payment from July 2007 and ceased in December 2011 when it was eliminated as part of the Company’s Cost Recovery Process. The allowance was paid to the Car Park Controllers for taking on supervisory responsibilities when the Supervisor was absent.
Under the Company’s Cost Recovery Process 2009 staff numbers were reduced and the supervisor position was removed in 2011, thereby eliminating the requirement for stand-in Supervisors with its accompanying allowance.
The Union submitted that the Car Park Controllers were required to carry out the stand in supervisory role on a regular basis and accordingly it had become an established part of their duties/earnings. The Union claimed two-and-a-half times the annual loss of the allowance.
The Company rejected the claim for compensation and submitted that it was made clear to the Union in 2009 that the requirement for standing in for a Supervisor would be removed and contended that the employees could not have had any reasonable expectation that the allowance would continue.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that in all the circumstances of this case, taking account of the level of earnings derived from this allowance and the relatively short duration for which such payments were made, the
Company should pay compensation for the loss of the allowance. The Court recommends that each of the Claimants should be paid one year’s annual loss of their own individual Standing-up earnings derived by calculating their average Standing-up Allowance over the four years 2008 – 2011 inclusive.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st January 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.