Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86716 Case Number: LCR10835 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MURPHYS BREWERY - and - ITGWU |
Claims for:- (a) compensation for loss of overtime in respect of 8 general workers and (b) special payment for the installation of 'fobs' in respect of dispenser servicemen.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - Compensation for loss of overtime
8. The Court on the evidence presented at the hearing finds no
justification for granting compensation for loss of overtime.
Claim (b) - Special payment for the installation of 'fobs'
9. The Court recommends that the Union await the outcome of the
study being currently undertaken by Consultants which includes the
introduction of 'Fobs'.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th November, 1986 Evelyn Owens
T.McC./P. Deputy Chairman
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86716 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10835
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10835
PARTIES: MURPHY BREWERY IRELAND LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims for:-
(a) compensation for loss of overtime in respect of 8
general workers and
(b) special payment for the installation of 'fobs' in
respect of dispenser servicemen.
General background:
2. The new 'Murphy Brewery Ireland Limited' came into being in
April, 1983. The Union, on behalf of the workers concerned served
the above claims on the Company. The Company rejected the claims
and as no agreement could be reached at local level the matters
were referred, on 18th June, 1986, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. Following conciliation conferences, which were
held on 7th August and 3rd September, 1986, at which no further
progress was made, the claims were referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 4th November, 1986, in Cork.
Claim (a) - compensation for loss of overtime
Background:
3. Early this year the Company changed from a 3 to a 4 shift
operation in the brewhouse and cold room areas where the workers
concerned are employed. This has resulted in the loss of overtime
earnings to the workers in respect of Saturday and Sunday overtime
working and the loss of a double shift. The Union, on their
behalf, served a claim on the Company for the payment of
compensation in respect of the loss of overtime earnings and
quantified its claim as one year's net loss of #3,000 for each of
the 8 workers. The Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Under the 3 shift system overtime working on Saturdays
and Sundays together with the working of a double
shift - equivalent to 12 hours overtime in busy
periods - was available to the workers. Arising from
the introduction of a 4 shift system, this overtime
working no longer applies. This has resulted in a
serious financial loss to the workers which the Union
calculates to be #3,000 per worker over a twelve month
period, when allowance for the enhanced shift payments
is taken into consideration. It is only fair and
reasonable that the workers be compensated for this
loss of earnings.
(ii) The Company has produced figures showing that overtime
earnings have not decreased for the workers since the
introduction of 4 shift working. This is explained by
the fact that some of the workers have been absent
from duty on sick leave, annual leave, etc, since the
4 shift operation was introduced and their duties have
been performed on an overtime basis by the other
workers.
(iii) The claim is fully justified and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) When the new owners of the brewery took over in April
1983 it was clearly seen, and accepted by all
concerned, that it was essential to introduce new
technology and work practices and the company/union
agreement specifically provided for these planned
investments at that time (details supplied to the
Court).
(b) Figures showing the average overtime earnings of the
workers concerned from 1983 to date (details supplied
to to the Court) indicate no loss of overtime earnings
to the workers since the change to 4 cycle shift. In
addition, the 4 shift operation has a shift premium of
T + as against T + .25 on 3 shift.
(c) The claim is not a valid one and must be rejected.
Claim (b) - special payment for the installation of 'fobs'
Background:
5. The duties of dispenser servicemen involve installing beer and
stout dispensing equipment. A bonus scheme applies to these
workers. This year the Company introduced a new type of cleaning
filter for installation in public houses. The filters are
referred to as 'fobs'. The Union, on behalf of the workers
concerned, served a claim on the Company for extra payment for the
installation of 'fobs'. The Company rejected the claim but
referred to a study being undertaken by a consultant, with the
agreement of all parties, of the draught beer service area with a
view to developing and introducing a new bonus scheme more
appropriate to current operations. This study will also include
the introduction of 'fobs'.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) The Union does not accept the Company's contention
that the workers concerned are paid top bonus and
overtime rates while installing 'fobs'. The workers
undertook this extra work in conjunction with their
normal duties to facilitate the Company on the basis
that their claim for extra payment would be fairly
dealt with.
(ii) Similar workers in a comparable local Company are paid
#8 per installation of 'fobs' and #1.60 per cleaning.
Similar payments should apply to the workers here
concerned.
(iii) The claim is a reasonable one and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
7. (a) An incentive scheme has been in operation in the
draught beer service area since 1977/78. This scheme
is accepted by all including the workers concerned, as
being irrelevant to current conditions due to changes