Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89347 Case Number: LCR12451 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SWITZER AND COMPANY - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim for payment in respect of overtime worked rather than time off in lieu.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the payment of overtime in
error on one occasion is not sufficient evidence to support the
Union's claim. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89347 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12451
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SWITZER AND COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for payment in respect of overtime worked rather than
time off in lieu.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is a dispatch manager who worked one late
night in November and two Sundays in December, 1988. He
subsequently submitted a claim for overtime payment in the amount
of #286.11. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that as
a management employee he was not entitled to overtime payments.
Following local discussions the Company offered the worker time
off in lieu but this was rejected by the Union. Further local
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
3rd April, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 15th
May, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the
16th May, 1989. A Court hearing was held on the 22nd June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The premium for working late night trading is double time
and for Sunday trading is treble time. Details of the
Agreements (negotiated between the Union and the Company) on
late night trading and Sunday trading have been supplied to
the Court. The employee previously worked a late night in
June, 1988 for which he was paid double time in accordance
with the trade agreement. The Company never informed the
worker that in future he would not be paid for such overtime.
2. The employee worked overtime with the approval of
Management and was in fact allocated an area in which to work
this overtime. He did so on the understanding that he would
receive payment at the appropriate premium rates. At no stage
was he informed by the Company that his category of staff
would not receive overtime payments. The Union claims that
the Company should pay the worker the outstanding monies owed
to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The salaries of management employees are not covered by
trade agreements. They are negotiated individually at their
annual review. All Management employees have negotiated
salaries well in excess of union rates. It has always been
the case that extra hours worked by management employees are
not eligible for overtime payment. The worker concerned is a
salaried member of the management team and is therefore not
entitled to payment for extra hours worked.
2. The Union claims that the worker was paid for extra hours
worked in June, 1988. The Company only became aware of this
fact in 1989 and it was discovered that the payment was made
in error by the payroll department (who processed over 1,000
requests for overtime for June, 1988). Taking into account
any misunderstanding which may have occurred as a result of
the error in June, 1988, and in order to maintain goodwill,
the Company offered time off in lieu to the worker which he
rejected.
3. It must be emphasised that Company policy has always been
that management employees on annual review are not entitled to
payment for extra hours worked. Their salary structure is
based on policy. To pay the worker concerned for these extra
hours worked would result in a precedent being set for other
members of management who have already been compensated for
this extra commitment through negotiated salary rates well in
excess of trade agreement rates.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the payment of overtime in
error on one occasion is not sufficient evidence to support the
Union's claim. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
30th June, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D/J.C.