Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89627 Case Number: LCR12606 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ANTIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of overtime earnings in respect of three workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company offer and the Union accept a sum of
#1,200 for each of the three claimants in full settlement of the
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89627 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12606
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ANTIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of overtime
earnings in respect of three workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 150 people at Roscrea, Co. Tipperary and
is involved in manufacturing and marketing a wide range of generic
pharmaceutical products for both home and export markets. In
early 1988 the Company sought to introduce a major rationalisation
plan which, inter-alia, involved redundancies, elimination of
differentials, shift working, and loss of overtime. Negotiations
took place at local level and as no agreement was reached the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court and subsequently to a full hearing of the Labour Court which
took place on the 9th June, 1988 (LCR 11919 refers). The Union
claims that during the negotiations that took place on the
rationalisation plan it was agreed with the Company that a claim
for loss of overtime would be deferred for six months in order to
allow the actual loss, if any, to be ascertained. The Company
rejects the Union's claim that a claim for compensation for the
loss of overtime earnings was raised during negotiations on the
rationalisation plan. The matter was referred on 11th April, 1989
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 17th May, 1989. No agreement was reached
and the matter was referred on 14th September, 1989 to a full
hearing of the Labour Court which took place on 11th October,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In January, 1988 the Company presented the Union with a
major rationalisation plan which was the subject of protracted
negotiations which included a claim by the Union for loss of
differentials and loss of overtime earnings. In an effort to
make progress on the major points of the rationalisation plan
the Company suggested that the claim for loss of overtime
earnings should be deferred for six months to ascertain how
many should benefit.
3. 2. It transpired there were four workers involved in the
claim at that time, but one worker continued to have overtime
earnings and therefore his claim was not pursued. When the
Union made their claim after the six months on behalf of three
workers the Company made no offer and denied there was any
such arrangement. For the Company to suggest that the Union
had not made an earlier claim is preposterous.
3. The workers concerned had extensive overtime for several
years to facilitate the Company and it would be unfair if they
were not now compensated as per the formula agreed for others
who suffered loss. All the other workers that were involved
in the rationalisation plan were compensated and the three
workers involved have every reason to expect that they will
also be compensated.
4. The Union is claiming a two years "buy out" as endorsed by
LCR 11919 for other loss of earnings claims arising from the
rationalisation plan.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following negotiations in 1988 on the proposed
rationalisation plan and the issue of LCR 11919, agreement was
reached with the Union to buy out rate differentials based on
the loss over two years. The question of compensation for
loss of overtime earnings was not part of this agreement and
was not raised during the discussions which led to the
agreement.
2. The workers have moved to a two-shift system for which
they are paid a shift premium of 1/6th. It was the Company's
understanding that the loss of overtime earnings by the
workers affected by the changes was accepted by the Unions as
a necessary part of the rationalisation plan.
3. Concession of the claim could lead to further claims from
members of the Union and from members of other unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company offer and the Union accept a sum of
#1,200 for each of the three claimants in full settlement of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__20th__October,___1989. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman