Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89459 Case Number: LCR12506 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the allocation of overtime in the warehouse area.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider day overtime situations as an
appropriate way of accommodating shift workers who have
aspirations to transfer to day work and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89459 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12506
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE PLC
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the allocation of overtime in the warehouse
area.
BACKGROUND:
2. The current overtime system as operated in the Warehouse is
that warehousemen have first preference on overtime and if it is
necessary to draft other people from day work to assist, the next
groups to be utilised are the general labourers pool and the day
generals. Should there still be a short-fall in manpower to cope
with the particular level of overtime, other day workers are drawn
in on a rostered basis (the overtime levels worked varies from day
to day and from week to week but usually averages between 80 to
100 hours each week). The Union is claiming that shift workers
should be brought in on day work, on a temporary basis, when
overtime is required over and above that normally covered by
warehousemen, general labourers pool and day generals. The
Company rejected the claim. Following the failure of local level
discussions the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 4th May, 1989. No agreement was reached
at a conciliation conference on the 14th June and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 17th July, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Overtime should be confined to those already in the
warehouse, the general pool and the day general pool. If
further overtime cover is needed, shift workers who have
applied (and been accepted) for inclusion in the day general
pool should be brought in.
2. A number of shift workers with long service want day work
but there is only limited availability of such work.
3. The Company is restricting the opportunities for shift
workers to go on days (they carry their shift rate when they
go on days on a temporary basis but lose it if made permanent)
with casuals being called in to do overtime ahead of them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's customers require deliveries on 24 hour
notice and therefore it is essential that it retains the
flexibility to cope with the day to day situations as they
arise by having staff available at short notice.
2. A change to a situation where a shift worker is brought
down for a week on a temporary basis would make the management
of the situation more difficult because of the way overtime is
generated.
3. The consequences of bringing shift workers down on day
work would inevitably result in some reduction in earnings for
shift workers because of the temporary nature of the work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider day overtime situations as an
appropriate way of accommodating shift workers who have
aspirations to transfer to day work and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
9th August, 1989 Chairman.
D.H./J.C.