Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88946 Case Number: AD898 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CARROLLS TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Unions against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning overtime payment to three chauffeurs.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that there are no grounds for altering the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation which it upholds. The Court
accordingly rejects the Trade Unions' appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88946 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD889
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CARROLLS TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Unions against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning overtime payment to three chauffeurs.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides its senior executives and directors with
a limousine and chauffeur service on a 24 hour, seven day a week
basis. Since 1974 the practice has been that the chauffeurs were
paid from the time their first job commenced on a given day until
the completion of their last job on that day. Management recently
proposed to change this practice as follows:
Saturdays
Time plus a half for first 4 hours (guaranteed) and double
time thereafter for actual time worked.
Sundays
Double time for all time worked. (Guaranteed minimum 4
hours).
Monday - Friday
If a driver is requested to do a job after normal finishing
time, say from 9.00 p.m., he would be paid a minimum of 4
hours at appropriate rates or actual time worked if it
exceeded 4 hours. If a driver worked on/after 5.15 p.m.
(normal finishing time) to say 7.30 p.m. - the minimum 4 hours
would not apply - he would be paid for 2.25 hours.
Following a local level meeting between the parties on the 3rd
June, 1988, the Unions advised Management that they were referring
the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation.
3. The matter was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
investigation on the 20th October, 1988, following which the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation on the
25th October:
"I recommend that the claimants accept the new procedures. In
consideration of their full acceptance, I further recommend
that each receives compensation for loss based on actual loss
of hours in the past twelve months multiplied by 2.75. On
the weekend loss, this will equate to #120 per man. In
addition, I recommend #80 for potential loss in the mid-week
evenings, making #200 compensation in total to each claimant.
I further recommend that the new arrangements be submitted in
writing to the Unions to avoid future conflict in
interpretation."
This recommendation was unacceptable to the Unions who appealed it
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the 13th
January, 1989. At the hearing the parties disagreed on what
exactly was the dispute before the Court. The Company was of the
view that the Unions had in effect accepted the new system and the
only issue outstanding was compensation for any losses suffered.
This was disputed by the Unions which claimed that the entire
issue was to be considered.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreed arrangements have been in operation since 1974
and no reasons have been put forward to justify a change now.
2. The employees concerned will suffer a financial loss but
more importantly will suffer an unacceptable change in their
current work practice.
3. The Programme for National Recovery provides for no cost
increasing claims for the duration of the agreement. The
corollary of this must be that there should be no benefit
reducing proposals for the duration of the programme either.
4. The savings that would be made by the Company based on the
submission to the Rights Commissioner are negligible. Any
argument along these lines are of no real consequence in the
context of the Company's submission. If there are no savings
to be made, there is therefore no need to change an agreed
system.
5. The system cannot be changed without agreement and the
Unions are not prepared to give their agreement at this time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. During the course of the Rights Commissioner's
investigation the Company, recognised that the old method of
payment for the type of overtime central to the dispute had
evolved through custom and practice and in order to settle the
issue, agreed to pay compensation relating to the number of
times such duties were requested over the previous 21 month
period, using the "straight through" payment against the
method of payment now proposed as a basis to determine the
annual loss. Having examined the records of such Saturday and
Sunday overtime, the annual loss difference emerged at 16.25
hours in total for the three claimants. Using the formula
this yielded an approximate payment of #120 per man rounded
up.
2. Although it was not possible to analyse the loss suffered
in relation to evening work of the nature in question, the
Company accepted a sum of #80 compensation (in addition to the
#120 already offered) as recommended by the Rights
Commissioner, to settle the issue. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and equitable and the Court is
requested to uphold it.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that there are no grounds for altering the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation which it upholds. The Court
accordingly rejects the Trade Unions' appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
1st February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.