Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86608 Case Number: LCR10884 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: NYPRO LTD - and - FWUI |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of clause 12 of the site agreement.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has studied the Site Agreement concerned.
The Court interprets Clause 12 of the Agreement as relating to
voluntary working of overtime - which should not be of indefinite
duration - and which should not be unreasonably refused.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86608 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10884
SECTION 20(2) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10884
PARTIES: NYPRO LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of clause 12 of the site
agreement.
Background:
2. The Company was set-up in 1982 and is engaged in custom
injection moulding. It currently employs 126 workers and operates
three eight-hour shifts five days per week from 8.00 a.m. Monday
to 8.00 a.m. Saturday. At present each shift consists of
twenty-one workers. Overtime was worked occasionally on Saturdays
and Sundays and sometimes complete week-ends when the occasion
demanded it. Such overtime is worked in accordance with Clause
11(d) and Clause 12 of the Site Agreement.
3. In April, 1986, the Company considered that some week-end work
was necessary and it sought that workers should be available for
work every second week-end. A worker indicated that he did not
consider that this was 'reasonable overtime' and that he was not
prepared to tolerate the imposition of restrictions which were not
in the site agreement. The Company took the view that the worker
was in breach of the site agreement by refusing to work
'reasonable' overtime. The Company suspended the worker over his
stance and this resulted in a work stoppage.
4. That dispute was not resolved at local negotiations and it was
subsequently agreed that a reference should be made to the Labour
Court under section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
for an interpretation of Clause 12 in the context of the site
agreement which states:-
OVERTIME:
Overtime may be essential from time to time to cope with the
circumstances of the business and all employees will be
expected to work reasonable overtime if it becomes
necessary. Overtime rates are contained in the addendum to
this agreement".
The parties agreed that they would be bound by the Court's
Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 16th October,
1986. The Court's recommendation was issued to the parties by
letter on 21st November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The Company accepted orders from customers which would
entail seven day working and it was, therefore,
obliged to negotiate with the Union on how this
problem might be overcome. Instead of negotiating the
Company tried to impose conditions on the members
which have never been agreed too.
(ii) There is no reference in Clause 12 of the Site
Agreement to any requirement for shift overtime
specifically at the week-ends.
(iii) The Company proposed to structure the overtime in such
a way as to bring about seven shift working each
alternate week-end without agreement. It also
proposed not to pay a shift premium for the proposed
6th and 7th day of shift-working.
(iv) It is unreasonable for the Company to say that workers
must work overtime in 8 hour Shifts on their rest days
and if they do not they are liable to be dismissed.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company considers that the correct interpretation
of Clause 12 in the context of the Site Agreement, is
that all employees are obliged to work overtime on
shifts at week-ends. The interpretation of the word
"reasonable" as used in Clause 12 when taken in the
context of the Site Agreement relates to the number of
hours and not to when those hours occur or to the
rates of pay associated with those hours.
(b) When Clause 11(d) and Clause 12 of the Site Agreement
are taken in conjunction it is clear that week-end
shifts for existing shift workers can be introduced.
The overtime rates applicable are laid down in the
Agreement. Clause 11(d) of the Agreement states:-
"The Company shall have the right to introduce
additional shifts from 8.00 a.m. Saturday to 8.00
a.m. Monday inclusive, if this should become
necessary, at the appropriate overtime rate set out
in the addendum".
and Clause 12 states:-
"Overtime may be essential from time to time to cope
with the circumstances of the business and all
employees will be expected to work reasonable
overtime if it becomes necessary. Overtime rates
are contained in the addendum to this Agreement".
(c) The Company contends that shift overtime at week-ends
is the only interpretation that can be logically drawn
from Clauses 11(d) and 12. The interpretation of the
word "reasonable" as in Clause 12 is that it refers to
the number of hours and not to when those hours occur
or to the rates of pay associated with those hours.
The Company would interpret the word "reasonable" in
the context of not infringing existing legislation.
(d) The Union's claim on the 25th wage round, which was
investigated by the Labour Court, included a claim
that shift rate should apply to shift workers on
overtime. In Labour Court Recommendation No. 10118
the Court recommended that the Company should not pay
shift premium to shift workers who work overtime on
Saturday or Sunday. It is apparent that it was
recognised and accepted by the Union that shift
overtime at week-ends would be necessary from time to
time. If it was felt that week-end shift overtime was
not "reasonable" then surely this argument should have
been advanced by the Union to the Labour Court at the
hearing on 21st October, 1985.
(e) A letter from the Company to the Union in December,
1982 clearly shows that agreement was reached which
conceded that week-end shifts would be covered by
overtime along with a number of other options
whichever was the most appropriate (details supplied
to the Court).
(f) The Union's claim is based on two conflicting
premises. The Union appears to be saying that the
only matter in dispute about the 4 p.m. to midnight
and the midnight to 8 a.m. shifts at week-ends is the
payment for those hours thereby accepting that
these shifts are 'reasonable' overtime. However, at a
later stage the Union also states that those shifts at
the week-end are not 'reasonable' overtime.
Therefore, it is implied that irrespective of the
premium paid these two shift are unreasonable and need
not be worked. It is clear that the Union's arguments
in relation to these two points cannot be logically
sustained as they are in conflict with each other.
(g) The Company considers that in serving this claim the
Union is aiming to overturn the Site Agreement, and
the Labour Court Recommendation No. 10118, accepted by
the Union, which upheld the terms of that Agreement.
The fact that the majority of the labour force have
been prepared to accept week-end shift overtime under
the present pay arrangements indicates that the
problem is being exploited by a minority.
(h) A similar situation arose in January, 1983, when a
Shop Steward refused to work shift overtime at
week-ends unless shift premium was paid. That worker
during the course of the negotiations, which
culminated in the Site Agreement, disagreed with the
clause in the Agreement whereby shift workers' working
shift overtime at week-ends were NOT paid overtime on
the basic plus shift premium. When the situation
arose in January, 1983, he resigned from the Company
on a matter of principle as he was not prepared to
work shift overtime at week-ends unless he was paid
overtime on the basic plus shift premium.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has studied the Site Agreement concerned.
The Court interprets Clause 12 of the Agreement as relating to
voluntary working of overtime - which should not be of indefinite
duration - and which should not be unreasonably refused.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P. Deputy Chairman