FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LUFTHANSA TECHNIK TURBINE SHANNON (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-139554-ir-13/GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-139554-ir-13/GC.. The issue concerns the transfer of a worker from one area of the Company's Plant to another. The Union contends that the relocation of the worker within the Plant resulted in a loss of earnings as the new post did not attract overtime. The Union is seeking that the worker be compensated for the loss of overtime earnings. Management's position is that it acted at all times in line with the agreed policies and procedures and had legitimate business reasons for transferring the worker to another area of the Plant. It further contends that it is inappropriate to compensate the worker in circumstances where the Company has not acted in an unfair manner.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 10th June 2014. The Rights Commissioner, although finding that the Company had followed its procedures and had not acted unreasonably, awarded the worker €1000 in compensation.
On the 18th July 2014 the employer 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 17th September 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was transferred to another area of the Company Plant. The Union contends that the worker incurred a loss of overtime earnings as a result of the transfer and should be compensated. In all the circumstances of the case the Union accepts that the €1000 compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner is an appropriate Industrial Relations resolution to the issues in dispute between the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management contends that it acted reasonably at all times. The worker was transferred to another area of the Plant in line with Company policies and procedures and the possibility of him returning to his original location was also an option if desired. In those circumstances Management does not accept that the payment of compensation to the worker is appropriate.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Employer against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which awarded the Claimant the sum of €1,000 in full and final settlement of his claim against the Company. The claim submitted to the Rights Commissioner concerned a dispute which had arisen as a consequence of the manner in which the Claimant was transferred from one part of the plant to another and the Company’s failure to protect his earning which reduced as a result of the transfer.
The Company explained to the Court the reasons why the transfer was necessary and the reasons why the Claimant in question was selected for the transfer. It submitted that the Claimant did not suffer an actual loss in earnings; instead it stated that his earnings increased.
The Union submitted that the Claimant has been singled out for unfair treatment, however, it decided in the interest of good industrial relations not to appeal the Rights Commissioner Recommendation and engaged in discussions with the Company on agreeing a mechanism to deal with transfer of employees within the plant.
In her Recommendation the Rights Commissioner found,inter alia, that:-
- •the Company’s policy on Job Rotation/Flexibility outlined the objectives as achieving an efficient and flexible workforce;
•in the context of a major investment and re-engineering the requirement to move staff was not unreasonable;
•the Company’s criteria for choosing the Claimant for the transfer stood the test of scrutiny;
•the Company had made every effort to resolve this dispute, including an offer to move the Claimant back;
•while the Claimant did suffer a drop in income due to the move, the issue of compensation for overtime was not conceded
However she recommended an award of €1,000 to the Claimant.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner’s findings, however, in light of these findings it is not clear why the Rights Commissioner made a recommendation to pay the award to the Claimant. In the circumstances the Court varies the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, it does not find in favour of the award of €1,000 to the Claimant and accordingly upholds the Employer’s appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th October 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.