Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93618 Case Number: AD942 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CRAFTMASTERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW/232/93.
Recommendation:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is reasonable and should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93618 APPEAL DECISION NO. A.D.294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CRAFTMASTERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW/232/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned joined the Company in 1974. For the
past six years he was responsible for the fitting of windows to
private houses and had the use of a Company vehicle for this work.
In January 1993, the Company transferred the worker to other
duties for which a Company vehicle was no longer required. The
Union claimed compensation on behalf of the worker for loss of the
transport facility. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On the 27th October, 1993 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #200 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.)
On the 2nd November, 1993 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 13th January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned suffered a substantial financial
loss as a result of the Company's decision to withdraw the
vehicle from him. The estimated value of use of the vehicle
was #40 per week.
2. The worker experienced problems with transport to and
from his work as well as the added inconvenience of using
public transport necessitating more time away from home.
3. The worker must be adequately compensated for his loss.
The Rights Commissioner's award of #200 only amounts to five
times the weekly loss of use of the vehicle and is far less
than the normal formula used in such situations. The Union
is claiming an amount equal to twice the annual loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following removal of use of the Company vehicle from the
worker he was offered a choice of three options:
1. Remain on site work without use of the van but be
paid standard travel expenses
2. Return to his old job in the factory
3. Avail of redundancy
He chose to remain working on site and was paid travelling
time amounting to #62 per week for a period of six months.
2. The Company is operating in a very difficult trading
market and has been forced to substantially reduce its
workforce. It cannot afford to concede any cost-increasing
claims. However it has accepted and is prepared to
implement the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
DECISION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is reasonable and should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th January, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.