Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88258 Case Number: AD8830 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: STAFFORD MILLER IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 34/88 concerning the payment of overtime to three laboratory technicians.
Recommendation:
10. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88258 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD3088
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: STAFFORD MILLER IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 34/88 concerning the payment of overtime to
three laboratory technicians.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is located in Dungarvan, manufactures
dental care products and employs 90 people in various categories
including laboratory technicians.
3. In early 1987, the Company and the Union reached an agreement
on a claim for upgrading of line samplers (whose duties include
inspecting product quality). The line samplers received an
increase of £12 a week. In return the line samplers were trained
to carry out assays and approve batches when required (work which
is normally done by laboratory technicians).
4. The laboratory technicians subsequently sought clarification
of the line samplers' upgrading agreement. The Company replied by
letter dated 24th March, 1987.
5. In November, 1987, because of pressure to fill orders,
overtime working for the duration of 2 shifts on a Saturday was
necessary, which was the first time in 6 years that such overtime
was worked. There was a total of 2 hours work which could be done
by either line samplers or laboratory technicians required on that
particular Saturday. The Company decided that under the
circumstances it would ask the line samplers to work the shift.
6. The laboratory technicians objected and the Union
subsequently referred a claim for payment of overtime in respect
of the Saturday and interpretation of the agreement to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Following an
investigation held on 25th February, 1988, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation dated 25th February, 1988 -
"It would be unreasonable to expect any company to incur the
cost of bringing in a relatively highly paid worker on
overtime over a full shift to cover four half hour
operations.
However this particular set of circumstances were not covered
in the Company's letter of clarification to the Union dated
24th March, 1987. This outlined two situations when the line
sampler could perform this work. In fact it stated inter
alia: "It was not our intention to use the samplers as a
means of reducing the possible overtime for Laboratory
Technicians ....." In my view that is precisely what
happened, but for sound reasons which I advance above.
Accordingly, I recommend that for these reasons the Company
is justified for the future in adopting this interpretation
despite the assurance above in relation to overtime.
In accordance of the misunderstanding that arose because of
the lack of clarity in the agreement's application, I further
recommend that a full shifts' pay for the Saturday in
question be divided between the claimants in full and final
settlement of their claims and acceptance of the Company's
interpretation of the agreement which I share".
7. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing was held in Waterford on 18th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In its letter dated 24th March, 1987, the Company stated
"that it was not their intention to use the line samplers as
a means of reducing possible overtime for the laboratory
technicians". On the Saturday in question possible overtime
for laboratory technicians was worked by line samplers.
2. It is the view of the workers concerned that denying them
the opportunity to work the overtime on that occasion was
contrary to the spirit of Management's letter dated 24th
March, 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The original agreement gave the Company the right to
cover the shifts in this manner.
2. The Rights Commissioner has not only upheld the original
agreement but reiterated the Company's application of it in
such circumstances.
3. The Company has already paid for this right by upgrading
line samplers with a negotiated increase of £12.
4. The Company does not accept that the laboratory
technicians have any right of 'first refusal' on overtime in
these circumstances.
DECISION:
10. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman