INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY
DAMIEN TANSEY & COMPANY SOLICITORS)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Claim by a worker of alleged unfair treatment and discrimination by the employer and inadequate compensation.
2. The worker concerned was a permanent employee of the Council and worked in the employment for over ten years. When the Corporation implemented a rationalisation of the refuse collection system to a wheel bin system an agreement was concluded between the Corporation and the Union representing the workforce on compensation payments for the refuse crews affected by the change i.e. the main crew and the standby crew (details supplied to the Court). The worker concerned claimed that he was entitled to the compensation as paid to those workers. Management rejected the claim on the basis that the worker was on neither crew. On the 24th of August, 1999, the worker through his legal representative, submitted a complaint to the Labour Court of unfair treatment, discrimination and inadequate compensation, under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Sligo on the 29th of September, 1999.
1. The claimant worked consistent and substantial amounts of overtime as a relief worker when members of the regular/standby crews were not available (details of hours worked and earnings supplied to the Court).
2. At an early stage in the negotiations, the worker was informed by Management that he would receive special consideration but despite his best attempts to receive a fair compensation payment his claim was rejected.
3. Another employee who had very little service with the Corporation received the appropriate compensation (paid to the regular and standby crews).
4. The claimant was an excellent worker and afforded full co-operation and flexibility by being available and willing to undertake all duties assigned to him. He was been treated in a most unjust and unfair manner and is seeking adequate compensation, as applied to the standby crew i.e. £2,5000.
1. The Corporation conducted open negotiations with the Union representing workers (including the claimant) in relation to the proposed change on the introduction of the bin refuse collection system and mechanised street sweeping. An agreement was reached between the parties following the Union's ballot of its membership.
2. The claimant was represented, voted and treated in a fair and similar manner having regard to all other similarly affected workers in the employment. He received the same compensation payment as seven other workers employed as relief men.
3. The Corporation accepts that the claimant approached Management to negotiate his "special case". He was sympathetically received but based on the facts of his position from records going back over the years, the Corporation could not concede that special circumstances existed.
On the basis of the submissions made by the parties in this case, the Court is satisfied that the issue of compensation arising from changes in work organisation was comprehensively dealt with in an agreement concluded between the claimant's Union and the Corporation.
As a matter of good industrial relations practice, the terms of the agreement reached should now be accepted by the parties. For this reason the Court does not recommend concession of the worker's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th October, 1999.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.