Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88301 Case Number: LCR11850 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that in the particular circumstances of this case the
Company should compensate the claimant for loss of overtime
calculated on the basis of one year's loss at a rate of 4 hours
per week less any overtime worked or refused in 1988.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88301 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11850
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of
overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is a grade 5 process operator. Between
January, 1983, and May, 1987, he worked overtime of approximately
six hours per week. Overtime was discontinued in May, 1987 and
the Union, on his behalf, sought compensation for this loss. The
Company rejected the claim stating that an agreement reached in
1980 whereby this worker and others were compensated for loss of
overtime precluded further such claims. The Union referred the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 24th
December, 1987. A conciliation conference held on 6th January,
1988, failed to resolve the issue and it was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 2nd May,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not buy-out overtime rights in perpetuity
when reaching the 1980 agreement. That payment was a
cushioning arrangement to allow employees who had become
accustomed to a given income level to make the adjustment to a
lower income level occasioned by the abolition of overtime.
Potential earnings to age sixty-five have never been the basis
on which such buy-outs were based. They are normally based on
the length of time the employee has enjoyed the regular
overtime and the likelihood that patterns of personal
expenditure will be disrupted by its termination.
2. The concept of repeated earned entitlements to
compensation is recognised in the protective legislation
affecting employment. Employees may benefit from the
legislation repeatedly during their working life, on the basis
of service given. This principle applies in this case also.
3. The Company recognises that compensation is payable where
overtime is lost, due to factors other than market decline.
The compensation paid to the employee is in recognition of the
contribution the employee makes to the efficiency of the
Company and the loss of income occasioned by that efficiency.
There is no justification for refusing to pay compensation
again where an employee contributes to efficiency and suffers
a loss for a second time.
4. The worker was informed by his foreman, in 1983, that he
was required to do two nights (six hours) overtime per week,
which he did for a period of almost five years.
5. The Union quantifies its claim as one and a half times the
annual loss, a total of £2,750.08.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1980 this worker accepted compensation for loss of
overtime in full and final settlement of his claim. There can
therefore be no question of further compensation for loss of
overtime as the compensation was in respect of future loss
arising out of the reduction in overtime working into the
future. This is the principle on which all such agreements
are made by the Company. The Company has never compensated
any employee twice for loss of overtime.
2. The worker's overtime since 1980 is accounted for as
follows:-
(a) In 1983 a once-off order of 40 million tablet cases was
required for Leo Denmark. This order resulted in
unforeseen overtime for the worker.
(b) In 1983 and 1984 a large number of product rejections
resulted in the worker benefiting by extra overtime.
This problem was eventually resolved.
(c) In 1985 due to faulty equipment on the Wurster Coating
Machines of which the worker is the service operator,
there was a slowdown in production. This also resulted
in significant overtime.
(d) In 1986 and 1987 the packing of Burinex K tablets for
transfer to Leo France resulted in significant overtime.
This ceased in mid 1987.