Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87405 Case Number: AD8767 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WHELAN BOOT MFG. CO. LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning a reduction in working hours.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the opinion that the employer's offer as set
out in its letter of 11th May, 1987 as regards hours and rates
represents a reasonable interpretation of the Right Commissioners
Recommendation and should be accepted on a trial basis by the
employee concerned. As so interpreted the Court decides that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
On the question of the proposal for extra payment for locking up
in the evening the worker concerned should have the option of
refusing this aspect of the proposal on the grounds that it did
not form part of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87405 THE LABOUR COURT AD6787
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 67 OF 1987
Parties: WHELAN BOOT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning a reduction in working hours.
Background:
2. This appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with
the Company in October, 1981 as a general utility operative. The
worker had additional responsibilities and worked an average of
fifty hours a week. The worker's hours of work were from 7 am to
1 pm and from 4 pm to 8 pm on Monday to Friday and in addition he
worked on Saturday mornings. This basic rate of pay is #165.20
per week while the factory basic is #109.86. From 1983 to 1986
the worker was transferred to the stores because the storeman was
out ill, however he still did utility work. In 1986 the worker
reverted to his former duties and his hours were adjusted to a
minimum of 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. with a one hour lunch break plus
Saturday morning work as required.
3. A dispute arose because he wanted to be paid "on the clock"
for a forty hour basic week without commitment to work fifty
hours. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred
to a Rights Commissioner who investigated it on 18th February,
1987 and issued the following recommendation:
7. The job for which the worker was employed requires him
to work more than 40 hours a week without extra
remuneration but of course his inclusive rate is good.
Therefore he is obliged to conform to those hours and
conditions unless they are altered by mutual agreement.
8. As an alternative which ought be agreed between the
parties I recommend that he be placed on a 40 - hour
flexible week at factory basic rate plus 15% bonus.
The worker rejected the recommendation and following negotiations
the Company made a final offer as follows:
"The company's final proposal in settlement of this
issue is for the worker to work 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m.
daily and in accordance with Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. 17,414 he will receive a premium of
15% over the basic rate. In addition the worker will
receive #6.00 per week key money for locking up in the
evening. Under this proposal hours worked on a
Saturday would be paid at overtime rates.
As this issue has been ongoing for some time we would
request that the worker should at least give these
arrangements an opportunity to work on a trial basis as
they represent a genuine attempt on management's part
to resolve the issue amicably."
On 13th May, 1987 the Union appealed the Recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) for investigation and
recommendation. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 29th July,
1987 in Cavan.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The worker considers that 7 p.m. is too late a
finishing time and he does not want the responsibility
of locking up at night. The worker wants to have a
finishing time of 6 p.m. each day with a reasonable
rate of pay. That is a rate with a differential of 20%
over the basic rate.
(ii) The worker is satisfied that his duties can be finished
in the hours claimed especially now that the factory
operatives cease work at 4.30 p.m. His present
finishing time 7 p.m. was defined when the factory did
not cease until 6.00 p.m. which left him with just one
hour to clean up the factory floor area. He always
achieved this goal and there is no reason why he cannot
do likewise within one hour of 4.30 p.m. and still have
time for other duties before finishing at 6 p.m.
(iii) The argument on pay relates to the fact that #165.20
per week (his present salary) equates to 3.304p per
hour. The Company's proposal of #126.34 equates to
3.158p per hour. He has already lost some other perks
as a result of making and pressing this claim and there
is no good reason why the job he does so well should be
so devalued.
(iv) The worker fills an important service role to
production workers who are capable of earning 30%
bonus. Therefore, the 20% fixed bonus would not be
disproportionate to the production operatives'
earnings. His claim on pay also has to take into
account that he is a stand-by driver and drives a
Company vehicle each evening as part of his dispatch
duties. He would not be excessively overpaid as a
driver on the requested basic plus 20%.
(v) The proposed payment of Saturday hours at overtime rate
should not be misconstrued by the Court as a means of
bolstering an unsatisfactory pay rate. The worker is a
single man and, with the existing punitive income tax
system as it is, it would not pay him to work overtime.
(vi) The worker is entitled to be facilitated on a 40-hour
week basis and the Company could be more co-operative
in meeting him on this reasonable aspiration.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The worker is in receipt of a basic weekly rate of pay
of #169.71. This rate is greatly in excess of the
factory basic rate (#112.86) and average earnings in
the Company.
(b) The nature of the job requires work to be performed
under flexible hours. This demands that a 40 hour week
be worked but on the basis of hours different to those
that apply in the factory. In order to carry out this
work effectively those hours must be between 10.00 a.m.
and 7.00 p.m. daily.
(c) Were the Court to recommend in the worker's favour the
Company would have no alternative but to consider
making the employee redundant as they would not have
sufficient work to retain him in the position and would
still require another employee to carry out the
additional work necessary.
DECISION:
6. The Court is of the opinion that the employer's offer as set
out in its letter of 11th May, 1987 as regards hours and rates
represents a reasonable interpretation of the Right Commissioners
Recommendation and should be accepted on a trial basis by the
employee concerned. As so interpreted the Court decides that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
On the question of the proposal for extra payment for locking up
in the evening the worker concerned should have the option of
refusing this aspect of the proposal on the grounds that it did
not form part of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th August, 1987.
T.O'M./J.C.