Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86907 Case Number: AD8720 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CIE - and - ITGWU |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CM/16,695 concerning the allocation of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is fair and equitable in all the circumstances of the
case and accordingly the Court rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86907 THE LABOUR COURT AD20/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 20 OF 1987
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN (STRANORLAR)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CM/16,695
concerning the allocation of overtime.
Background:
2. There are five workers (mechanics) attached to Stranorlar.
There used to be three but the complement was brought up to five
in 1985 when the garage in Donegal was closed. In June, 1977 a
local agreement was entered into between the Union and the Company
in respect of the allocation of Saturday overtime working. The
effect of the agreement is that in the event of Saturday overtime
the senior mechanic would be called upon first and if an
additional mechanic was required it rotated between the other
mechanics. The practice has obtained ever since the agreement was
entered into. In December, 1985 the Union sought to revise the
procedure, by the allocation of Saturday work on a shared basis.
The Company pointed out that it had no objection to a revision of
the agreement provided it did not lead to extra costs and that no
claims for compensation for loss of earnings as a result would be
considered. The Company also pointed out that the senior mechanic
objected to the proposed revision. The Union referred the matter
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
25th August, 1986 the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation -
"The mechanics should rotate equally on Saturday
overtime but when a second man is required the senior
mechanic should be that person for the day unless he is
already working his allocated Saturday.
The Company would not be obliged to compensate him for
any consequential loss of earnings."
The Company and the senior mechanic accepted the recommendation.
The Union appealed the recommendation on 4th November, 1986 to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The appeal was heard in Donegal on 24th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was based on
the assumption on one mechanic being employed every
Saturday. The position has obtained for some time that
two or three mechanics have been requested to work on
Saturdays.
(b) The workers have no objection to the work being shared
on a seniority basis the senior mechanic having first
option in the context of at least two mechanics
operating on a Saturday. The following proposal was
put to Area Personnel Officer on 4th November, 1986 but
was rejected, and was also rejected by the senior
mechanic.
Proposal
1st Saturday senior mechanic and A.N. other.
2nd Saturday A.N. other and A.N. other.
3rd A.N. other (if available) and senior mechanic.
In the event of a mechanic not being available on above
roster or a third person being required the senior
mechanic would be given first option.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) It does not make any great difference to the Company
how the allocation of Saturday overtime working is
shared out once it does not affect attendance as
required, and there is no extra cost accruing to the
Company. However, the Company would be concerned that
in arriving at a revised roster, proper weight was
accorded to the existing agreement, which was
negotiated by the Union in 1977 and which has operated
successfully ever since, and that the senior mechanic
be consulted in respect of any change and that his
position as senior mechanic and his position under the
existing agreement be recognised. Also, the Company is
concerned that the Union wishes to set aside the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, which in
essence was an agreed recommendation, after examining
all the facts of the case.
(ii) The recommendation clearly recognises the aspiration of
some of the mechanics to have equal allocation, the
position of the senior mechanic to have his traditional
position recognised and of course, the eventual
position that might obtain with less Saturday overtime
being made available. In this latter situation with
only one mechanic required on the Saturday, there would
be equal allocation of the overtime. It is vital in
the present economic position of the Company to take
this basic and fundamental view on board, when
assessing work practices and the allocation of overtime
for the future.
(iii) The latest Union suggestion varying the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is simplistic in that it
assumes that at least two mechanics will be required on
the Saturday indefinitely and it ignores the wishes and
rights of the senior mechanic. It also indicates that
one of the three members it speaks for, might not be
available for Saturday work.
DECISION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is fair and equitable in all the circumstances of the
case and accordingly the Court rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
26th March, 1987
M.D./J.C.