Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87208 Case Number: LCR11223 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALBATROS LTD - and - ITGWU;GROUP OF UNIONS |
Claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the opinion that the terms of the 1984 Agreement on
compensation for losses was clearly concerned with losses which
directly related to the re-organisation programme. Since such a
relationship has not been established in this case the Court does
not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87208 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11223
CC861994 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11223
Parties: D.S.M. ALBATROSS LIMITED
and
GROUP OF UNIONS
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
Background:
2. In 1984 the Company implemented a rationalisation programme
which mainly effected the manufacturing operations. The parties
reached agreement on the rationalisation with the exception of the
question of compensation. The Unions proposed, after
negotiations, that actual overtime losses occurring subsequent to
the re-organisation should be compensated for at the rate of 80%
on an annual basis. The Company offered to compensate the workers
for any loss of overtime that occurred in the first six months of
1985 compared with the first six months of 1984. No agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner, who
carried out an investigation and issued a recommendation as
follows:
"The Company's proposals for loss of or reduction in
shift premium are fair and reasonable so I recommend
that they be accepted.
I could not recommend a continuation of shift premium
until a settlement is reached.
The Company's proposals for estimating loss of overtime
are well founded and in accordance with good industrial
relations practice. But there is a difficulty in
applying them now because there would be no apparent
loss as the first part of 1985 was greatly influenced
by new plant not affecting productivity and overtime
until July.
Therefore I am recommending that the Company concede
60% of the overtime worked in the period 1st January to
30th June, 1984, this can be paid out in four phases:
25% immediately.
25% on or before 31st July, 1986.
25% on or before 31st January, 1987.
25% on or before 31st July, 1987."
The Company appealed that Recommendation to the Labour Court. The
Court investigated the case and in May, 1986 issued its decision
as follows:
"The evidence provided to the Court demonstrates that
there has been no actual loss of overtime earnings up
to and including the first quarter of 1986. In these
circumstances the Court upholds the Company's appeal
and decides accordingly."
(Appeal Decision Number 46 of 1986 refers).
3. The Union raised the claim again towards the end of 1986. No
agreement was reached at local level and on 3rd December, 1986 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 6th February, 1987
but no agreement was reached and on 19th March, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 12th May, 1987 in Waterford.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) The Unions are standing by their arguments as presented
to the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court in
1986, viz. the precedent of the 1982 agreement and the
major increases in productivity secured by the Company
at no extra cost in overtime or productivity payments.
(ii) There was an actual loss of overtime in the second half
of 1986 compared with the same period in 1984. This
year overtime has effectively finished and the Company
itself admits that there will be little or no overtime
for the foreseeable future.
(iii) The Company has already accepted that where a loss is
suffered there is an entitlement to compensation. In
its submission to the Court on 2nd April, 1986, the
Company stated -
"We contend that there is an important
differentiation between an employee who has
suffered a loss and an employee who has not
suffered any loss. The former is entitled to
compensation, but in relative terms this is
negated if an employee who has not suffered any
loss receives the same compensatory payment."
The grounds on which the Court based its decision in
1986 no longer apply.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The claim is essentially the same as the original claim
in relation to which the Labour Court issued Appeal
Decision 46 of 1986 which was binding on both parties.
(b) It is clear that the overtime earnings for each of the
years 1985 and 1986 were greater than 1984. It is
quite likely that the earnings for the first six months
of 1987 will also be greater than the same period in
1984. On this basis there has been no loss.
(c) A comparison of overtime earnings in 1986 with overtime
earnings in 1985 is not relevant as both periods were
after the implementation of the re-organisation plan.
Furthermore, a reduction in demand for the Company's
products leads to a reduction in production
requirements and in turn reduces overtime levels. This
is what happened between 1985 and 1986.
(d) The Company's offer to compensate for a loss of
overtime earnings between the first six months of 1985
compared to the first six months of 1984 is still
available. However the Company cannot accept that
workers must be compensated for loss of earnings which
are attributable to a fall in demand for product
(details supplied).
(e) The Unions in claiming compensation because of
increased productivity are ignoring the 1984 Agreement
between the Unions and the Company. Bagging output is
still well below the levels agreed in 1984.
(f) The Company's financial state is a matter of concern
with shareholders having had to refinance the Company
in recent years.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the opinion that the terms of the 1984 Agreement on
compensation for losses was clearly concerned with losses which
directly related to the re-organisation programme. Since such a
relationship has not been established in this case the Court does
not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
Deputy Chairman.
8th June, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.