INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR21148/04/DI.
2. Up until 2001 the Company operated three import terminals in the Republic of Ireland in Dublin, Tivoli (Cork) and New Ross. In the early 1990's the Company employed all of its bulk driver on a permanent basis.Various schemes were introduced to change the method of employment and the costs associated. The worker concerned availed of such a scheme, a voluntary early retirement package, and changed his status. He did however continue to work as a full-time driver for the Company on remuneration terms specific to him.
In 2003 the Company agreed to buy out the divide line between Dublin and Cork and payment was fixed as a total sum to be divided as deemed appropriate by the staff. The Company was advised that the split would be among the (historic) permanent drivers. The Company subsequently paid an equal sum to each of eight permanent drivers. The worker concerned was excluded from the divide.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His Recommendation which issued on the 18th February, 2005 is as follows:-
"I find against the Claimant's complaint as I do not believe that the Company should have to pay any additional sum over and above the €20,000 already paid in compensation for the transfer of responsibility.
....I believe that the Claimant had terms and conditions that were unique to him."
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 14th March, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th November, 2005.
3. 1.The worker concerned should have been included in the divide as he is a permanent driver.
2. The worker's personal remuneration terms should not in any way affect his rights as a permanent driver.
3. All those entitled to be included in the divide should have benefited.
4. 1. The intention with regard to the division of the money was honoured by the Company.
2. The drivers included for the diviser exercise were those who were a) affected by the new divide line between Dublin and Cork, and b) those who did not receive a separation package through redundancy and a change of status and operational contract.
3. There are no objective grounds to support the view that the Company, the Union and the Rights Commissioner were wrong in excluding the worker concerned from receiving a payment.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th November, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.