Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86676 Case Number: LCR10785 Section / Act: S67 Parties: INDEPENDANT NEWSPAPERS - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim for the inclusion of average overtime in the calculation of holiday pay.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86676 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10785
CC86858 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10785
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS P.L.C.
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the inclusion of average overtime in the calculation
of holiday pay.
Background:
2. The claim concerns approximately 160 workers employed by the
Company in the case room departments. Conditions of employment in
the case room are covered by a productivity agreement concluded
between the parties in 1969 and revised in 1974 and 1979. The
parties are in disagreement about the method of calculating
holiday pay. The Union claims that the workers should have
average overtime included in the calculation of their pay for
holidays as this applies to other workers. The Company rejects
the claim mainly on the grounds that the workers do not work any
rostered or mandatory overtime.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 9th
May, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 24th
June, 1986, but no agreement was reached. On 22nd August, 1986,
the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 25th
September, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) When the productivity agreement was signed in 1969,
and indeed up to 1975, there was no overtime worked in
the case room area. It was not noticed, therefore,
when the Company did not pay average earnings for
holidays during this period. The issue is being
raised now because overtime is being worked to an
increasing extent.
(ii) Two other craft unions and a group of non-craft
workers have similar productivity agreements with
similar clauses covering holiday pay. The Company
pays the other workers average earnings inclusive of
average overtime for their holidays. However, the
Company would not apply this to the workers concerned.
The relevant clause in the agreement covering the
workers is clause 8 which states;-
"The salary paid for Annual Holiday entitlement
including the additional week paid in lieu of
worked Statutory Holidays will, in accordance with
the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, be the average
of the total earnings of the operative over the six
four-week periods immediately preceding the date on
which such holidays occur, taking into account the
operative's day and night working".
The other agreements are similar in content. The
Company has disregarded the Agreement with the Union
and discriminated against the workers concerned in the
method of payment for holidays.
(iii) It is clear that the Company is in breach of the
Agreement particularly clause 16 which concerned
extended shift cover and states as follows:-
"It is the intention of this Agreement that the work
of the Case room will be carried out without
recourse to additional hours of work than those
laid out in Clause 63. However, situations and
contingencies can arise necessitating time in
excess of the normal hours of work. The decision
for such cover will be made by the Duty Overseer,
who will be responsible for establishing the
staffing cover necessary. Payment for such cover
will be at the appropriate overtime rate on the
band level of the operative per hour (or part)
worked. This extended shift cover will be on an
imminent edition and will be guaranteed by the
Chapel. The work done will not be entered on the
Daily Record Sheet and the staff will be at liberty
to leave once the contingency is completed. They
will not be required to process follow-on or
advance copy.
It may be necessary on other occasions to have
cover in exceptional circumstances, e.g. sickness,
holidays, imbalance in workload between sections.
The decision for such cover will be made by he Duty
Overseer, who will be responsible for establishing
the staffing cover necessary. All copy will be
processed and work will be recorded on a separate
record sheet. Payment will be made at the
appropriate overtime rate on the performance
achieved by the operative during the excess hours.
Net performance range 116 and over paid at 132
rate, and net performance range 111-115 paid at 128
rate".
(iv) It is clear that the Company is in breach of the
Productivity Agreement. In these circumstances the
workers should have their holiday pay calculated on
their average earnings including overtime. The
workers should receive retrospective payment on this
to 1977.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) This claim, which is really for relativity with
maintenance workers, is not justified. Any overtime
worked by the workers is voluntary and is not
rostered. The maintenance workers must work mandatory
rostered overtime which is an integral and necessary
part of the operation.
(b) The Holiday (Employees) Act 1973 specifically excludes
overtime pay for the purpose of calculating pay for
annual leave. The Holiday entitlement clauses of both
the case room and maintenance agreements were intended
as an outline of entitlements under the Holidays
(Employees) Act, 1973.
(c) The direct cost of concession of this claim would be
#89,000. Retrospection to 1977 would amount to
#264,000. The full cost of concession of possible
repercussive claims could be almost as high as
#1,400,000.
(d) Concession of the claim would have serious
repercussive effects for the Company by giving rise to
similar claims from other workers. This would lead to
a worsening of the Company's competitive position
within the industry and place serious constraints on
the Company's finances. The 25th wage round agreement
contains a no cost increasing claims clause.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th November, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P.W. Deputy Chairman