Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86915 Case Number: LCR10986 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASON & SON LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the inclusion of average overtime in holiday pay.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the terms of Recommendation No
10155(5c) be applied to four (4) of the Correspondence Clerks as
named by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
10th February, 1987 --------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86915 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10986
CC86490 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10986
Parties: EASON & SON LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the inclusion of average overtime in holiday pay.
Background:
2. This claim concerns Correspondence Clerks employed by the
Company in the Wholesale News Department. There are a total of
eight Correspondence Clerks employed by the Company, however only
four of them work overtime regularly. The Union claims, on behalf
of these four workers, that average regular overtime pay should be
included in the calculation of holiday pay. It contends that the
terms of Labour Court Recommendation No 10155, which included a
Recommendation on a similar claim, should be applied to these
workers. The Company rejects the claim.
3. In LCR No 10155 the Court made the following Recommendation in
relation to the inclusion of average overtime in holiday pay.
"The Court recommends that workers who regularly work
overtime and who have agreed to work the overtime as
required, should have this reflected in their holiday
pay. In recommending concession of this claim, the
Court notes the Union's statement that approximately 20
workers will benefit from this. If there are any
difficulties with this recommendation the parties
should discuss the matter further".
The parties disagreed as to whether that Recommendation applied to
the workers here concerned. In July 1986 the Court clarified that
the Recommendation applied to workers who regularly work overtime
and who have agreed to work the overtime as required. However,
there was no agreement between the parties.
4. In an effort to reach a settlement the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 24th November, 1986 but no agreement was
reached and the case was referred to the Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 19th
December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The original claim was made on behalf of staff who are
engaged in the wholesale news and dispatch areas.
(ii) The workers have worked an average of two or three
hours overtime per week for many years. The overtime
worked is necessary for business reasons and to
maintain an even flow of work. The circumstances in
which workers work overtime are, therefore no different
from those applying to those workers to whom the
Company have conceded the terms of LCR No. 10155 except
the grade of work performed.
(iii) The cost of conceding the claim is minimal and would
not affect the Company's finances.
(iv) It is unlikely that concession of this claim would lead
to any consequential claims. There is no other group
within the Company working regular overtime who do not
already have this benefit.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The workers here concerned were not party to the
original claim at any stage.
(b) The Holidays (Employees) Act 1973 excludes overtime pay
from its definition of normal weekly rate It states
"Pay for annual leave shall be at the normal weekly
rate of remuneration".
(c) In similar cases before the Court in recent years
concession of the claim has only been recommended in a
small number of cases. The main factors taken account
of in those cases appear to be rostered overtime (LCR
Nos 5657, 6983 and 7889 refer) or that the overtime is
essential for the job (LCR Nos 8500 and 6773 refer).
In two other cases regular working of overtime was not
taken as a basis for its inclusion in holiday pay (LCR
Nos 9928 and 9398 refer).
(d) The overtime worked by the workers concerned is neither
rostered nor essential for the normal working of the
department. Therefore, the claim should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the terms of Recommendation No
10155(5c) be applied to four (4) of the Correspondence Clerks as
named by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
10th February, 1987 --------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman