Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87343 Case Number: LCR11273 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARKETT - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of 12 workers for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances pertaining in this case the Court does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87343 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11273
CC87362 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11273
PARTIES: TARKETT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 12 workers for compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which currently employs 188 workers is a member
of the Swedish Match Group and manufactures sheet vinyl flooring
in a variety of widths. The factory originally built by G.A.F.
an American multinational was bought by the present Company in
1981. The Company has invested heavily in plant and equipment in
order to improve its products. One of the processes involved is
called the coating line and in order to minimise product loss and
poor quality during the start-up operation it is normally kept
running around the clock during the production of a particular
product. The system of operation on this line is a two cycle 12
hour shift on Mondays and Tuesdays and eight hour shifts for the
remainder of the week. Overtime rates plus a 1/6 premium were
applicable to the extra hours worked. In March, 1987, the Company
in order to meet market requirements, hired extra workers and
converted to a three cycle operation providing 24 hour cover 5
days a week. The shift premium was increased to 1/5th at that
time. The Company stated at the time that this was a temporary
measure and that as orders decreased the operation would be
reverted to a two cycle operation. The Union claimed compensation
calculated at #1,684 per worker for the overtime earnings lost as
a consequence of the change. The Company rejected the claim and
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 24th February, 1987. A conciliation conference was held
on 18th March, 1987. As no agreement was possible both parties
agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Athlone on 16th June,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The additional hours worked were part of the workers
normal roster and the additional earnings accruing
became part and parcel of their normal take home pay.
(b) It is normal good industrial relations to pay
compensation for the loss of regular rostered overtime
and there are numerous Labour Court recommendations to
support this.
(c) The Company recognises the principle of compensation
for loss of earnings and this is endorsed in the
Company/Union Agreement.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The change to a 3 cycle operation was effectively
forced on the Company by inability to get the
necessary overtime cover from the operators currently
claiming loss of overtime earnings.
(ii) Overtime was never guaranteed and was requested on a
week to week basis depending on production demands.
The claim if conceded would have repercussive effects
which could possibly cost as much as #200,000 and
more.
(iii) The Company has fought back from a continuous loss
making situation and in doing so, has necessarily
increased production. This necessitates changes to
shift operations to meet demands. These changes are
recognised as necessary by the Union and are catered
for in the house agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances pertaining in this case the Court does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
____1st___July,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman