Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88851 Case Number: LCR12178 Section / Act: S67 Parties: R.A. BURKE LIMITED - and - ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL, TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS |
Claim, on behalf of one employee, for payment of overtime rates and annual bonus.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimant accepts the Company's offer
of 6th October, 1988 amended to provide for #3,000 compensation in
full and final settlement of all outstanding claims against the
Company. The Court notes management's undertaking that he will be
paid annual bonus on the same basis as other managers.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88851 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12178
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: R.A. BURKE LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL, TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one employee, for payment of overtime
rates and annual bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
1958. He was appointed director of a subsidiary Company in 1974
and was given a Company car. In April 1985 he became manager of
the liner department. In August, 1986, he was informed that the
Company was not happy with his performance. His appointment as
director was terminated and he was asked to transfer back to his
previous position as manager of the agency department. The Union
states that he was told that he would not lose any income and
would retain the Company car. In May, 1987 the car was taken from
the employee by the Company. It was stated that this was due to
economic factors. The claimant objected to the withdrawal of the
car and the matter was referred on 19th December, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 28th January, 1988. At this conference
reference was also made by the Union to the question of non
payment for overtime worked by the claimant. The claimant's name
and home telephone number are entered in the telephone directory
under the name of the Company to be contacted after business
hours. The Union contends that he works a lot of overtime arising
from telephone calls after hours. The Company said that this was
recognised in his overall salary. The Union also referred to the
fact that an annual bonus of #1,000 which had previously been paid
was not paid in December, 1987. No agreement was reached at the
conciliation conference held on 28th January, 1988 and further
local level discussions subsequently took place. A second
conciliation conference took place on 6th October, 1988. The
Company's final position at this conference was as follows:-
(a) It would re-introduce the car.
(b) It would pay #2,000 compensation for the period during
which the car was withdrawn.
This position was not acceptable to the Union in relation to the
bonus and overtime claims and the matter was referred on 25th
October, 1988, to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing
took place on 18th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was informed in 1986 that he would not
suffer any loss of salary and would retain the Company car
when he transferred back to the agency department.
2. The claimant's salary was never intended to cover an
overtime situation. He has co-operated with overtime working.
All telephone calls after hours in connection with shipping
agency come to him. He must take appropriate action which
often involves going down to the port. He is required to work
at night and at weekends (the Union supplied the Court with a
detailed list of occasions when overtime was worked by the
claimant in recent months.
3. Other employees of the Company on similar or higher
salaries work minimal overtime in comparison with the
claimant.
4. When he transferred to agency work the claimant was
informed that he would not lose income. The Union contends
that this includes bonus also. Bonus was not paid in 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The offer made to the claimant at the conciliation
conference on 6th October, 1988 is a fair and reasonable one.
It was made as a gesture of good faith by the company. It
reinstates a company car to the claimant and offers him
compensation.
2. If the company car had not been withdrawn in June, 1987,
the claimant would have lost it in October, 1987 as the
Company withdrew cars from those Directors who did not have a
contract and those whose job did not require a car.
3. The company offered to make available to the claimant
the car attached to the Agency Department, when it was not
required by others on Company business. He did not take up
this offer however.
4. Any overtime worked by Company managers is included in
their salaries. This is the normal arrangement and it applies
to the claimant.
5. The claimant has never had a guaranteed bonus. The same
bonus is paid annually to all managers dependent on their
performance and the financial position of the Company. The
bonus has been and will be paid to the claimant on this basis
only, as is the case for all managers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimant accepts the Company's offer
of 6th October, 1988 amended to provide for #3,000 compensation in
full and final settlement of all outstanding claims against the
Company. The Court notes management's undertaking that he will be
paid annual bonus on the same basis as other managers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
19th December, 1988 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman