Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87358 Case Number: AD8774 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRL) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/16543, concerning compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no reason for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87358 THE LABOUR COURT AD7487
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 74 OF 1987
Parties: HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker against Rights
Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/16543, concerning
compensation for loss of earnings.
Background:
2. The worker concerned had been rostered for an hour's overtime
every morning for six years up to October, 1985, when the Company
discontinued it as part of its overall production plan. The Union
lodged a claim with the Company that this overtime should be
restored to the worker or that he be adequately compensated for
its loss. The Company pointed out that it does not and cannot
guarantee any level of overtime and that there was no real
reduction in the worker's general level of overtime, which had in
fact increased. The Union, however, explained that the worker had
lost #34/#35 a week in regular rostered overtime and that there
was no guarantee that any of his evening overtime would be
continued. The dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner
on 13th March, 1986. On 18th March, 1986, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation:-
"Overtime is not guaranteed nor is it a right but if
there was a loss there could be grounds for
compensation under certain conditions.
As the worker concerned has no loss of overtime
earnings since the hour each morning was taken away
from him there cannot be any compensation."
(The worker concerned was mentioned by name in the
recommendation).
On 23rd April, 1987, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place in
Tralee on 29th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union accepts that there was a temporary increase
in the amount of evening overtime at the time of the
Rights Commissioner's investigation. Subsequent events
have shown that the Union's claim is justified. The
worker concerned had a guaranteed hour's overtime every
morning for six years. Now he has virtually none.
(b) The Union contends that where a worker is required to
work overtime which is subsequently discontinued by the
employer, the employer should cushion the worker
against his loss. Therefore, the Union believes that
twice the worker's annual loss is reasonable
compensation.
(c) The Labour Court in many cases in the past has issued
recommendations for compensation to be paid in the case
of overtime earnings being lost (details provided to
the Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company does not and cannot guarantee overtime to
any employee. The change, in this particular case,
took place because it was vital to streamline
production and control, as part of the overall drive
for greater efficiency and viability.
(ii) The worker concerned suffered no real reduction in his
level of overtime. The level of overtime worked for
the remainder of 1985 and even up to the present, shows
that he suffered no real loss (details provided to the
Court).
(iii) The amount of overtime currently being worked by the
worker is as much as he could be expected to work,
especially having regard to complaints by the Union in
August, 1985, about the high level of overtime workers
were expected to do.
/......
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no reason for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman