AD8867

Subject:
Appeal, by the Company, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW115/87 concerning loss of overtime.

Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted that the Company introduced a significant
change in custom and practice in relation to overtime working in
May, 1987 and that the workers fully co-operated with this change
and continue to do so. In the circumstances and despite the fact
that losses were not incurred by the claimants in the period under
review, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
and considers that the #1,500 recommended by him should be paid as
soon as possible.

The Court rejects the Company's appeal.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD88645 DECISION NO. AD6788

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)


PARTIES: MIDLAND BUTTER AND BACON COMPANY LIMITED

and

IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the Company, against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW115/87 concerning loss of overtime.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the processing of a wide range of
bacon products. In May, 1987 the seven employees in the sausage
meat department were informed by the factory manager that, in
future, overtime would have to be authorised by him or by the
general manager. The workers submitted a claim for compensation
for loss of overtime earnings. Management rejected this claim as
unwarranted. The Union contended that an agreement had been
entered into in 1981 whereby the Company had guaranteed ongoing
overtime. Management denied that any such commitment had been
entered into. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner,
who, on 14th October, 1987, recommended as follows:
"I recommend that the workers accept that the regular overtime
has now been terminated and that re-organisation has meant
that the tasks can now be completed in normal time. I
recommend that it is accepted that the allocation of overtime
is now purely a matter of Management decision. I recommend
that Management agree to meet the Union in late May 1988 in
order to assess the extent to which regular overtime has been
replaced by directed overtime in order to see whether any
real loss has been effected. Without prejudice to either
side on the discussions to take place next May, I recommend
that the Company makes available the sum of #1,500 to be
divided between the workers concerned in a manner agreed at
local level."

Meetings between management and the Union took place in April and
July, 1988. Management was not prepared to implement the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and on 8th August, 1988, appealed it
to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on 18th October,
1988 in Tullamore.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Overtime was introduced at the Company's request some years
ago in order to improve efficiency and productivity. In 1981
the Company entered into an agreement with the Union in
respect of regular rostered overtime. The Company had, at
that time, sought to discontinue the overtime but, following
a dispute, it was restored and payment was made for losses
incurred.

3.2 The service of the seven workers is as follows:
Service
Worker 1 - 1 year
Worker 2 - 5 years
Worker 3 - 18 years
Worker 4 - 23 years
Worker 5 - 33 years
Worker 6 - 34 years
Worker 7 - 38 years
Many of the workers had enjoyed regular overtime for a
considrable priod. They will now suffer a substantial loss
which will have a severe effect on take home pay.

3.3 It was proven beyond doubt at the Rights Commissioner's
hearing that regular overtime was worked and this was
accepted by the Rights Commissioner in his findings and
recommendation. The recommendation did not fully meet the
workers' aspirations but was accepted by them as a correct
decision.

3.4 The Union believes that the Company can well afford to pay
#1,500 as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Rights Commissioner erred in his findings by accepting
the Union's claim that overtime had been abolished. This was
not the case but became the basis for part of his
recommendation. Management, in examining areas of reducing
cost, identified that unnecessary overtime was being worked
in the sausage meat department and that the work could be
completed within the normal working day. Under the
circumstances that prevailed, management advised the workers
in that department that only directed overtime could be
worked. Overtime was not withdrawn.

4.2 There has never been any agreement nor any guarantee
concerning overtime earnings. In an industry such as this,
fluctuations in trading conditions continuously arise and
such a commitment could not be entered into.

4.3 Management has exercised its right to manage and protect the
interests of the Company and of all the workers in
"tightening up" the procedures regarding the working of
overtime. The Company does not accept that the workers
concerned have incurred any losses as a result of this
decision (details of overtime earnings were supplied to the

Court showing that total overtime earnings increased by over
#1,000 in the period 1987/1988 as compared to 1986/1987).

4.4 The Company was prepared to wait until May 1988 to review the
situation in accordance with the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation but was not prepared to "make available the
sum of #1,500 to be divided between the workers" when a case
had not even been established. While the Rights Commissioner
accepted on the one hand that the Union's claim would have to
be established over a period of 10 months, his recommendation
provided payment to the members concerned in anticipation of
something that had not been established.

DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted that the Company introduced a significant
change in custom and practice in relation to overtime working in
May, 1987 and that the workers fully co-operated with this change
and continue to do so. In the circumstances and despite the fact
that losses were not incurred by the claimants in the period under
review, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
and considers that the #1,500 recommended by him should be paid as
soon as possible.

The Court rejects the Company's appeal.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


16th November, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
AK/PG Deputy Chairman