Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88799 Case Number: LCR12330 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BURLINGTON SPORTSWEAR FABRICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 6 workers concerning compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the specific circumstances of this case and also
the undertaking given by the Union that compensation in this case
would not create a precedent for the future, the Court recommends
that the proposal made by the Industrial Relations Officer should
be accepted.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88799 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12330
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BURLINGTON SPORTSWEAR FABRICS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 6 workers concerning
compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Over a number of years the Company has been restructuring
their operation with a view to improving the overall viability of
the plant. The restructuring measures for the Maintenance
Department had four elements:
(a) removal of shift helpers to days;
(b) reduction of overtime for shift craftsmen;
(c) reduction of some weekday overtime; and
(d) reduction of weekend overtime.
The Union claims that prior to 1988, all shop helpers, on both day
and shift, when available worked overtime for five evenings per
week until 8 p.m. (normal finishing time is 4.30 p.m.). This
overtime was in operation for over three years and amounted to an
average of 17.5 hours overtime per week. The Company then reduced
overtime to three evenings per week and also reduced the overtime
to 4.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. as opposed to 8 p.m. This meant a
reduction in weekly overtime from 17.5 hours to 4.5 hours. In
March, 1988, there was a further reduction in overtime working
from three evenings to two, thus reducing overtime to 3 hours per
week. The Union further claims that there has also been a
reduction in Saturday overtime with a resultant loss to the
workers. The Union lodged a claim on behalf of the workers for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings. The claim was
rejected by the Company on the basis that the reductions arose
because of a change in the pattern of work and the need to cut
costs. The Company did not believe that it should have to
compensate for the loss of overtime as the overtime in question
was not compulsory. The Company would not agree to the issue
being referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and on
the 20th April, 1988, the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 24th May, 1988, and the matter was
referred on 18th October, 1988, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
28th February, 1989, in Longford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers should be compensated for the removal of overtime
which has been worked consistently. This is only fair and
reasonable. The workers concerned have been working this
overtime for in excess of three years.
2. Initially the Union claimed compensation of #500 per
worker in respect of the loss, this was amended at the
suggestion of the Industrial Relations Officer to #100 which
was the sum awarded to workers in the Company's Tullamore
plant on foot of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. This
payment would not constitute a precedent. This proposal was
also rejected by the Company. The Union requests the Court to
endorse the Industrial Relations Officer's proposal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Overtime is worked on a voluntary and on a needs basis.
The Company has consistently retained the right to alter this
level of overtime when circumstances allow, without paying
compensation.
2. In this particular case, the workers concerned were not
required to work this overtime on a compulsory basis. An
increase in the number of helpers from 4 to 6 more than
justified the slight reduction in overtime.
3. The Court has in the past recognised that where overtime
is reduced in the context of rationalisation or in difficult
trading circumstances, compensation is not warranted. The
Company has beening operating in difficult trading
circumstances because of the volatile nature of the market,
the level of labour intensity and the comparative costs of
transportation and energy in Ireland.