Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88566 Case Number: AD8855 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KELLY'S BAKERY - and - THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 311/87 concerning compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
7. The Court noting the Company's offer of overtime on Sunday and
taking into account all aspects of the case is of the view that
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is reasonable.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88566 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5588
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: KELLY'S BAKERY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 311/87 concerning compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is a senior checker who has long service with the
Company. Arising out of a restructuring programme the worker
sustained a loss of overtime earnings estimated at #100 a week.
3. The Union claimed compensation for this loss. The claim was
rejected by the Company and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Following an
investigation held on 19th February, 1988 the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation dated 27th February, 1988:-
"There has been a change in top management since this event.
The claimants contribution over a long number of years is
fully recognised. He has been the unfortunate victim of
circumstances. He could have been a manager but for the
failure of the previous management to follow the matter
through. He is also unfortunate that he must make a
sacrifice in relation to Union policy on the protection of
employment. In the circumstances of the parlous state of the
Company I am unable to recommend that he receives
compensation for the losses he has incurred due to the loss
of overtime."
4. The Union appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 8th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker concerned has spent many years in checking
goods out. This is a very responsible position as he checks
thousands of pounds worth of goods out each day. In addition
he has to reconcile the stock sheets.
2. Over the years the worker has facilited the Company by
working whatever hours the Company required. The Company
changed his working arrangements without any consultation.
The new rosters which were introduced resulted in a loss of
approximately #100 a week to the worker.
3. The Company stated at the Rights Commissioners hearing
that the worker was offered Sunday overtime. The worker
denies that he was offered this work.
4. In view of the worker's long and loyal service to the
Company and the substantial loss which he has incurred it is
the Union's view that compensation is warranted in this case.
The Union does not accept that the Company is in a serious
financial position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Kelly's Bakery in line with many other bakeries in the
industry is not in a profit making situation. With the full
co-operation of the employees and local union branch the
Company has had to continually make changes and cut backs in
order to survive. This has helped the Company continue in
operation while other companies in the industry have closed.
2. During the 1980s' all areas of the Company have suffered
redundancies, non replacement and loss of earnings in order to
survive.
3. The old system was unacceptable from a number of points of
view in that the Company had no cover from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
and a high degree of overtime was being worked for limited
cover. The re-structuring of the checking area achieved two
objectives:
(a) it provided 24 hour cover.
(b) it created one additional position at the expense of
overtime (the position was given to an employee who would
have been made redundant otherwise). There is a clear
understanding between the Company and Union that whatever
possible overtime woll be substituted by additional
employment.
4. The worker concerned was subsequently offered overtime on
Sunday batch to help compensate for the loss of checking
overtime.
DECISION:
7. The Court noting the Company's offer of overtime on Sunday and
taking into account all aspects of the case is of the view that
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is reasonable.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________________
26th September, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.