Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88854 Case Number: AD8923 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GALTEE FOOD PRODUCTS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST290/88 concerning compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, in the light of the submissions made, does not
consider that any amendment to the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is warranted. The Court therefore so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88854 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: GALTEE FOOD PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST290/88 concerning compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
4th August, 1970. He was employed in the stores and paid
according to the general operatives salary scale at that time and
no overtime premium applied in respect of work on Saturday and
Sunday which he was obliged to do and which occurred regularly.
In 1977 the worker's rate of pay was replaced with the clerical
rate of pay, overtime worked was now paid for at the appropriate
overtime premium. Following rationalisation in the Company the
worker's overtime on Saturdays and Sundays was abolished. The
Union on behalf of the worker is claiming compensation in respect
of the lost overtime on Saturdays. An agreement exists in the
Company whereby a worker is paid twice the annual loss or overtime
is applied for a two year period. The Union claims that this
system of payment was intended to cover workers on overtime from
Monday to Friday and not for such a case as involves this worker
with regular weekend overtime. No agreement could be reached at
local level and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 30th August, 1988 and issued the
follow recommendation -
"The level of overtime worked by the Claimant was indeed
excessive. He still continues to work overtime which is
needed. He has received weekly supplements totally #1,638 to
date. In fact on three occasions, 8/7/88, 15/7/88 and the
22/7/88 he earned #26.71, #26.71 and #19.64 respectively more
than his previous weekly average which is the subject of his
claim.
In the circumstances I recommend that he accepts the agreed
formula for all, but because of his contribution and the
compulsory nature of much of his past overtime, I recommend
that he receives #500 without precedent or prejudice."
3. On 24th October, 1988 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on 22nd February,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's conditions of employment when he joined the
Company in 1970 specifically stated that Saturdays and Sundays
were part of his working week in addition to Monday to Friday.
The worker had a seven day week for most of the year and a six
day week for the full year. In 1972 the worker was given
responsibility for transport and this increased the incidence
of Sunday work. In addition, in 1976 the worker was
transferred to transport and maintenance stores and the need
for Saturday work increased. The agreement for loss of
earnings whereby a worker is paid twice the annual loss or
overtime is applied for a two year period was never intended
to apply to a situation like this.
2. Management has stated that in the period 1st January, 1988
to 30th August, 1988 the worker received #1,638 in earnings
for overtime worked. However, the worker also worked regular
overtime in addition to the permanent Saturday overtime and
this sum is mainly in respect of overtime from Monday to
Friday. The worker has suffered a loss of #71 in respect of
each Saturday. The worker had eighteen years' service up to
the discontinuation of Saturday overtime and using the
redundancy formula in operation in the Company which provides
for three weeks average earnings per year of service plus the
statutory the worker should receive #4,473 compensation in
respect of Saturdays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
5. 1. Following rationalisation of the maintenance department
the level of Saturday overtime was reduced. With effect from
1st January, 1988 the worker has been receiving the same
compensation in respect of any loss of earnings as every other
worker so affected, i.e. twice the annual loss. In the period
January to August, 1988, in accordance with the agreed
formula, the worker has received #1,638. On many occasions
the formula for loss of earnings has been applied to personnel
working Saturdays regularly. In the circumstances there is
no reason why this worker should be entitled to more
compensation than other workers in the Company.
DECISION:
6. The Court, in the light of the submissions made, does not
consider that any amendment to the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is warranted. The Court therefore so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
9th March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.