AD9735

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/158 APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD9735 (672/96) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. 672/96.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns the operation of the spiral cooler at the Company's "TimeOut" plant. On 10th July, 1996, 2 shop stewards on the night shift informed management that they had instructed their members not to restart the spiral cooler in the event of it being blocked. Up to that point, the cooler had been started and stopped by various workers in the area, without any single worker being designated the job. The reason given was perceived change in management's attitude towards deputy shop stewards.

When the cooler stopped, management asked 5 workers, including a shop steward, to clear and re-start the cooler. All 5 refused. The rest of the plant stopped as a result. The 5 workers each lost 5 hours pay as a result of the stoppage. The Union sought that 4 of the 5 workers should be paid the money lost. The shop steward who was involved had offered to suffer the loss of earnings.

Following a meeting between the parties, it was agreed that the Company would halve the loss of earnings for the 5 workers. However, the local shop stewards rejected this proposal, claiming that only one worker should not have received payment. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner, who's recommendation is as follows:-

"My own strong view is that unofficial industrial action should never be compensated. However, as the Company had already offered to meet half the loss, and, notwithstanding the earlier rejection of this by the Union, I recommend such a course in respect of all five individuals concerned."

The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 9th of April, 1997, in accordance with Section 13(9), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th of June, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. Co-operation in respect of clearing and re-starting the cooler was optional in the absence of having a designated person for the task. Therefore, the withdrawal of the co-operation could not be regarded as unofficial action. Also, management should have asked all the workers in the area (approximately 12) or else just one person. Two of the workers asked had no experience with the cooler and this was why they refused when asked.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company was within its rights to ask the 5 workers concerned to re-start the cooler. The 5 workers concerned were the appropriate ones to ask as they were in the immediate area. If only one had been asked he could have alleged unfair selection.

2. The 5 workers all stopped working on the advice of the shop stewards. This was the main reason given by the workers themselves, not unfair selection or lack of experience. The stoppage was unofficial. The workers could have continued with their duties, under protest if necessary, and discussed the situation afterwards. The Company lost substantial output as a result of the dispute. The offer to halve the loss for the 5 workers is purely a goodwill gesture and not an acknowledgement of a right to be paid.



DECISION:

Having considered the submissions, the Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is more than fair and should be upheld.

The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
7th July, 1997______________________
C O'N/U.S.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.