Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89258 Case Number: LCR12483 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALFA LASTEX LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 10 workers for compensation in respect of loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made, it seems clear to the
Court that all concerned in the excessive overtime working were
well aware that it related to special difficulties being
experienced at start-up and was never intended as a regular
working pattern providing a level of income upon which workers
might reasonably come to depend.
The Court therefore in these circumstances does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89258 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12483
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ALFA LASTEX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 10 workers for compensation in respect of
loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company first went into production in September, 1985 and
is engaged in the manufacture of rubber tapes for diapers,
swim-wear and underwear for export. A total of 23 people are
employed by the Company.
3. The Company experienced difficulties with plant, equipment and
product at its start-up and found it necessary to have overtime
worked. The overtime working ceased in October, 1987. The Union
lodged a claim for compensation of #1,000 lump-sum per person for
loss of overtime earnings. The claim was deferred following a
meeting with the Company held in November, 1987.
4. The Union re-activated its claim in October, 1988. The
Company rejected the claim. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 2nd December, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on 19th January, 1989. As no
agreement was possible both parties subsequently consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held in Cavan on the 28th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned have each lost approximately #8,000
in the period covered by the dispute and are having great
difficulty adjusting their life styles to their revised income
levels. Having co-operated with the Company over several
years, they now find themselves depending on their basic pay
through no fault of their own.
2. The Union does not accept the Company's argument that
overtime was discontinued due to loss of business in view of
the fact that extra staff have been recruited and the shift
system has been altered. It is also a more economic method of
operating the factory and the resulting savings will benefit
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company pays one of the highest rates of pay within
the region and this was agreed on the basis that it was the
Company's intention not to include overtime working into
normal weekly working hours. The Company believes that the
Union's claim is completely untenable, particularly in view of
the fact that the employees have benefitted in a dual way
during very difficult times in the Company, both by way of a
very high level of pay and having the opportunity of enhancing
their earnings through occasional overtime working, which was
necessitated by virtue of the unpredictable nature of the
product and equipment being used by the Company.
2. Overtime was at all times of a voluntary nature and this
has been accepted by the Union. In addition, by reducing
overhead costs at a very critical time, the Company was in a
position to offer full-time employment to 2 additional people.
3. The Company has to face a very serious situation in the
future in view of the financial constraints under which it is
operating (details supplied to the Court). At the moment the
Company's principle concern is to protect the employment of
all individuals and provide them with standard working hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made, it seems clear to the
Court that all concerned in the excessive overtime working were
well aware that it related to special difficulties being
experienced at start-up and was never intended as a regular
working pattern providing a level of income upon which workers
might reasonably come to depend.
The Court therefore in these circumstances does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___24th___July,___1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman