FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-1121537-IR-12/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-1121537-IR-12/JT. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for compensation owing to her as a result of a change in her shift pattern. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that the Worker is not entitled to compensation in this instance.The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th October, 2012, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions of both parties. As the Claimant never drove as a 'marked status' driver she does not have any loss. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and it fails".
On the 19th November, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 February, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has been treated in an inequitable manner as a result of the Employer's refusal to pay compensation to her.
2. The Worker is entitled to compensation as a result of a change in her shift pattern.
3.The Worker has been denied compensation during a period when she was absent from work due to illness.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that the Worker is not entitled to compensation as she was not affected by any change in her shift pattern.
2. The Worker was treated no less favourably than any of her colleagues.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the purpose of the Agreement of 21 July 2010, as clarified by the Company's letter dated 6 July 2011, is to ensure that drivers that lose the certainty of work patterns that are a feature of marked-in status are compensated for the detriment they suffer.
In this case the Worker was, at all relevant times, out of work through illness and never suffered any loss and consequently has no entitlement to the compensation claimed.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Worker's claim is not well-founded.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
13th March 2013______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.