Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88152 Case Number: LCR11804 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD GLASS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Rostered overtime is included in the calculation of holiday pay, pension etc. Claim for the introduction of rostered overtime and its backdating.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having examined the submissions from the parties is
not satisfied that it would be justified in recommending
concession of the claim.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88152 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11804
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD GLASS
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rostered overtime is included in the calculation of holiday
pay, pension etc. Claim for the introduction of rostered overtime
and its backdating.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns five manual supervisors who regularly work
unrostered overtime. Since the claim was first made one of the
workers has resigned. The Union is claiming that the overtime,
twelve hours per week, should be rostered and that the Summer and
Christmas holidays from January, 1984 should be classed as
rostered. The Union calculate that each of the workers should be
paid the eqivalent of 240 hours overtime as a retrospective
payment. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement was
reached at local level and on 10th November, 1987 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 10th December, 1987 but no
agreement was reached. On 26th February, 1988 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 22nd March, 1988 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The overtime in question twelve hours, in some cases more,
has been done by the workers for a considerable number of
years.
2. The workers supervise semi-skilled workers who work
rostered overtime. All other supervisors who supervise
workers with rostered overtime also have their overtime
hours rostered.
3. Some of the workers here concerned have decades of service
as Company supervisors. They now find themselves
supervising workers who have much shorter service but also
have rostered overtime.
4. Other supervisors have their overtime rostered.
5. The precedent for the retrospection payment has already
been set here in an agreement with another group of
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Designation of overtime on a rostered basis is made
relative to a specific type of work and not to a specified
employee, and this principle has applied throughout the
supervisory ranks.
2. The rostered overtime of the 3 existing production
supervisors of 3.7 hours per week, 3.7 hours per week and
6.0 hours per week respectively, is the basis under which
the claim is made, but this overtime was designated
rostered on the basis of it being non-production work.
The nature of the overtime carried out by the five
claimants is based on directly supervising production
output and, therefore, the Union's position is
unjustified.
3. The substitution of integrated, on line computerised
systems for manually completed records is in progress
in recent years and all designated rostered overtime in
relation to work of this nature will be eliminated as
unnecessary. The need to eliminate unnecessary overtime
has been recognised. Therefore, concession of rostered
overtime as claimed must be seen as a contradiction.
4. The cost of overtime to-date has proved a major
contributing factor in eroding the competitiveness of the
industry and any concession to this group, on the basis of
the claim as presented, would lead to further claims from
all sections within the industry who work production
overtime. This would counteract the Company's efforts to
restore our competitiveness so as to ensure the future
viability of the industry.
5. Concession of this claim would establish that production
output completed after normal finishing time can be
designated as attracting rostered overtime status, thereby
setting an indefensible precedent within the industry.
6. The ten remaining supervisors who do not have rostered
overtime would have the basis established for a rostered
overtime claim and subsequently all other worker
categories under their supervision would have similar
claims opened up to them. Consequently the Company's
ability to reduce costs would be disastrously impeded and
securing of future employment of the retained workforce
would be unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having examined the submissions from the parties is
not satisfied that it would be justified in recommending
concession of the claim.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___21st___April,____1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman