Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88759 Case Number: LCR12478 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARROLLS TOBACCO COMPANY - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union of behalf of three workers for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
finds no grounds for recommending concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88759 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12478
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CARROLLS TOBACCO COMPANY
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union of behalf of three workers for compensation
for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned work in the Material stores which
provides non-tobacco materials to other appropriate departments.
Since 1986, in the event of one or more of the workers
concerned being absent through illness or holidays, relief was
provided mainly from the Established Services department, whose
function it is to provide relief to a number of departments when
requested. The Union claims that utilising the Established
Services personnel has led to a reduction in the overtime that the
workers previously enjoyed. Another factor which has led to the
reduction in the overtime was the Company's decision, in 1986, to
re-organise the intake of materials to the stores with deliveries
of materials being spread over a longer period. The Union is
claiming compensation of #900 per worker based on an average loss
of 4.5 hours per week over a 40 hour week. The Company rejected
the claim and the matter was referred on 12th July, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 20th September, 1988,
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, on 11th October,
1988, for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place in Dundalk on 27th June, 1989, (the earliest date suitable
to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pattern of overtime working, which was a continuous
feature of the normal working week since October, 1984, was
cut-off abruptly by the Company in April, 1986, when staff
from the Establishment Services department were utilised to
undertake work normally carried out by the three workers here
concerned.
2. Two of the workers are employed on a rotating 2 day shift
and the 3rd on day work. If either of the shift workers
failed to come in, his work was covered by his opposite number
on the alternating shift cycle. With the changeover to using
Establishment Services personnel this overtime is no longer
available. The same situation applies to the fork-lift driver
and storeman.
3. Another factor which has caused part of the overtime loss
is the moving from the store of materials normally stored
there to an alternative store-house.
4. It is ironical that while overtime was withdrawn from the
three workers in the Materials Store, the Establishment
Services staff have themselves, on many occasions, enjoyed the
availability of overtime on the days they were working relief
in the Materials Store.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1986, when the Company decided to train the
Establishment Services staff so that they could provide cover
in the Engineering Stores it was a departure from previous
practice, for this reason compensation was paid. Similar
circumstances do not exist in this particular case.
2. The Company did not act unreasonably in deciding to
re-organise the store location of various materials. It is
the on-going function of management to utilise resources as
efficiently as possible.
3. Contrary to Union claims, Company records show that
between October, 1984 to April, 1986, relief for absences in
the Material Stores was provided by Establishment Services
staff on 107 days out of 117 days.