INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan
2. The case relates to a dispute over the correct level of compensation payable to the three Workers under the 2010 Survival Plan Agreement for changes in work practices. The Union claims that a higher amount should be paid while Management considers that the correct sum was paid according to the Agreement.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th July, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2012.
3. 1. The three Workers were working in Shop 2 at the time of the application of the Agreement in 2010 and are still in that position at the present time.
2. The three Workers have been denied parity with their colleagues and deserve to be awarded compensation accordingly.
4. 1. The three Workers were holders of full-time positions in Shop 1 at the time of the Agreement and were merely acting-up in the role in Shop 2, filling in for the full-time holders of the positions who were on long term absence.
2. If this claim were to be conceded it would mean that the Company would be paying on the double as both the post-holders and the acting-up post-holders would be getting the higher payment.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court has taken account of the particular circumstances of the three Claimants involved in this case where they have substantial historical service working in Shop 2. By letter dated 30thSeptember 2010 to the Union the Company outlined the agreed terms for payment of the compensation payments. This agreement stated that“….compensation will be paid out on the basis of the positions held following the restructure…”.
The Court is satisfied that the three Claimants involved in this case held Shop 2 positions for at least two years following the restructuring and on that basis the Court recommends that the difference between the €4,000 compensation already paid and the €11,000 compensation agreed to apply to Shop 2 positions should be paid to each of the Claimants involved.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd November, 2012______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.