FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOLIDEN TARA MINES - AND - (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision No: r-132957-ir-13/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-132957-ir-13/RG. The issue concerns a claim for loss of earnings following the removal of the worker from shift work. The Union is seeking that the worker be returned to his established shift with full retrospection and compensation for loss of earnings. The Union is also seeking an explanation why the workers time sheets were amended without his agreement. Management rejects the Union's claim on the basis that the worker had no entitlement to remain on the assignment that he was on and that he was merely transferred to another role in the Company in line with Company procedures. The Company contends that the times sheets were amended as a result of the worker submitting pay claims based on his original shift pattern and not on the basis of hours being worked while assisting the contractor. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 8th October 2013 and did not find in favour of the workers claim as submitted. The Rights Commissioner awarded the worker €3000 in compensation as the employer did not inform him in writing that he was moving to the day shift (8 hours) to complete the work with the Contractor and was not maintaining his original 10.5 hour shift pattern.
On the 1st November 2013, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd January 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was assigned to a contractor for an agreed period of time and it was understood that he would continue to work his established shift pattern. Management subsequently removed the worker from the assignment with the contractor which resulted in a significant loss of earnings (overtime and shift premium).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The worker was told that he would be working only day shifts while assisting the contractor. He did work the day shifts with the contractor but continued to claim payment for 10.5 hours shifts as this was his previous shift pattern. He was spoken to by management in relation to this but continued to submit claims for the additional hours. As a result management exercised its right to manage and transferred the worker back to his original shift.
DECISION:
It is clear that the management have the right under the Company / Union Agreement to assign workers to different work activities. Accordingly, it must be held that the Company acted within its rights in making the reassignment giving rise to this dispute. In these circumstances there is no reasonable basis upon which the Court could recommend the payment of compensation in the amount claimed.
It does, however, appear that the Company were somewhat remiss in not making it explicitly clear from the beginning what the Claimant was entitled to claim payment for while working on the assignment. In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation that the Claimant be paid compensation of €3,000 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from his reassignment back to his original shift pattern is fair and reasonable.
The appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd January 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.