Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86803 Case Number: LCR10942 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of twenty three workers, for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86803 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10942
D861538 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10942
Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of twenty three workers, for compensation for
loss of overtime earnings.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the Company's warehouse
at Mullagh, Co. Meath. These workers have had occasionally to
service the Company's external warehouses which are in Navan,
Crossakiel and Bailieborough. On such occasions the workers were
each paid 2.75 hours overtime. This work is now being handled by
contractors and the Union is seeking compensation for the workers.
3. In February, 1986 the Labour Court had investigated this
matter in the context of a dispute concerning the servicing of
external warehouses. Following its investigation the Court issued
Labour Court Recommendation No. 10363 as follows:
"The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that no significant losses were incurred
by the employees concerned and that established jobs
are not endangered. Accordingly, the Court considers
that it is a matter for the Company to arrange for the
most effective way of servicing its external warehouses
and the Court recommends that the Union accept this
position."
Subsequently the Union re-activated the matter and is claiming
that the workers should be compensated for the loss of the two and
three quarter hours' overtime they were paid when they serviced
the external warehouses. The Company rejected the claim.
4. No agreement was reached at local level and on 18th September,
1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 1st October,
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 2nd December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The workers have accepted the position following Labour
Court Recommendation No. 10363 that outside contractors
can service the external warehouses. However, the
workers are at a loss and should now be compensated for
their loss.
(ii) When a new extension to the Crossakiel warehouse was
completed in 1985, the Company intended servicing it
with outside contractors. After the Union objected to
this proposal the Company effectively 'froze' the
movement of material to and from Crossakiel and
eliminated the need for that warehouse to be serviced
by the workers. The Company's action had a twofold
effect as it drastically altered the frequency of
outside warehouse servicing by the workers, reducing
their earnings accordingly and it also distorted the
image of the dispute before the Court on the first
occasion.
(iii) Developments in the usage of Crossakiel Warehouse since
the issuing of the original Court Recommendation are
also noteworthy. The Company almost immediately
appointed a contractor to service the extended
warehouse and the flow of material to and from it has
been substantially increased. Had the workers retained
their original servicing arrangement, they would have
been required in Crossakiel on a daily basis. This
warehouse is also being used to reassemble loads, which
is work proper to the main Warehouse in Mullagh. This
is also affecting the earning capacity of the workers.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company have made a comparison of earnings in the
eight month period from March, to October in 1986 with
the same period in 1985. It is clear that there was no
loss in hours worked. There was no loss of earnings in
the period from March to October, 1986.
(b) The Company rejects the allegation that it froze the
operations of the Crossakiel warehouse. The Company
must respond to the market situation. It has little
control over the arrival of goods at the docks.
(c) There is no basis for this claim and it should be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
29th January, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.