Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88510 Case Number: LCR11958 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARROLL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a fitter for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88510 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11958
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CARROLL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a fitter for compensation for
loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The fitter concerned works a 2 cycle shift in the packing
department (7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
alternating weekly). The worker claimed that when he first went
on shift work in 1977, he was told that he would have to cover for
shift absence on overtime in the packing room whenever it might
occur. In 1982, the Company introduced what is known as a 'swing
man', who in the normal course of events was a day work fitter, to
cover for the absence of shift fitters in either the making or
packing departments. For this he receives a 'swing rate' for
flexibility and changing shift at short notice. The Union claims
that because of the change, the overtime of the worker concerned,
in covering for absences, has been considerably reduced and
compensation should be awarded. The Company rejected the claim on
the bsis that the 'swing man' was introduced as a means of
addressing the excessively high levels of overtime and the Union,
which was a party to its introduction, at no stage raised the
issue of its effect on overtime levels. On 2nd June, 1987, the
issue was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on 14th July, 1987, and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court, on 30th October, 1987, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 8th June, 1988, in
Dundalk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has suffered a considerable reduction
in overtime since the introduction of the 'swing man' (details
supplied to the Court). In the past year, January, 1987 to
January, 1988, his overtime as a percentage of basic has been
reduced to 1% due to the involvement of the 'swing man'.
2. In the 5 years, 1977 to 1982, he covered all absences by
his shift partner, whom it must be said had considerable
absences for various reasons. No agreement was reached with
the Union on the introduction of the 'swing man' and no
compensation was paid at the time to the worker concerned.
Last year the worker concerned lost a total of £7,265 in
overtime. (Details provided to the Court). The Union
believes he should be compensated at average overtime loss for
the last 5 years i.e. 1983 to 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose for introducing a 'swing man' for absence
relief was to reduce the excessive overtime levels in the
department. The Union was party to the agreement. No
agreement exists regarding guaranteed overtime in the
department.
2. Fluctuations of overtime levels in the department relate
to business requirements and compensation is not justifiable
for these fluctuations. The worker concerned has had very
high overtime earnings in relation to the department average
over the last 10 years. (Details provided to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
20th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.