Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89499 Case Number: AD8963 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal, by the Company, against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 37/89.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I must recommend that in accordance
with the long standing agreement between union and management
it is now the obligation of the Company to recompense the
twenty nine persons for the overtime hours involved in the
cancellation.
In making this recommendation I must also turn to the trade
unions and say that they must lean more heavily on
individuals who welch on undertakings already given that they
will work overtime."
The Company on 3rd July, 1989 appealed this recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 6th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union considers that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should be upheld. Custom and practice dictates
that twenty four hours notice of cancellation of overtime must
be given. This did not happen in the present case and so
payment for the overtime should be made to the twenty nine
workers who were available for work.
2. The workers could have been given alternative work to do
even if it were not feasible to work the assembly line.
3. There are a number of precedents for payment for unworked
overtime (examples given).
4. The workers suffered inconvenience and, in some cases,
financial loss as a result of making a commitment to work the
overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is appealing the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation as it considers that it is inappropriate that
payment should be made for overtime not worked in this
instance. The Company made every effort to ensure that the
overtime would proceed as planned. It was as a result of a
large number of employees withdrawing from their original
commitment that the overtime could not take place. It would
not have been feasible to train thirteen other workers to work
on the particular assembly line in such a short period of time
as was available.
2. The Company offered the employees further overtime two
weeks later which was created as a result of the original
overtime not being worked. This overtime was worked by the
employees.
3. The Company has also agreed to further recompense the
employees concerned by way of making further overtime
available of the same duration as that which was cancelled.
4. The Company in dealing with this matter has at all times
acted in a fair and reasonable manner.
DECISION:
5. It was established at the Court hearing that the position on
the 6th February, when the effective working of the planned
overtime was made impossible because of the absence and withdrawal
of so many skilled crew members, was unprecedented in the Company.
The situation was not provided for in either formal agreement or
custom and practice. In the circumstances, and having regard to
the fact that the Company provided alternative overtime working at
a later date, the Court does not consider that the recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner was appropriate and accordingly upholds
the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89499 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976 SECTION 1
3(9)PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY
THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS) and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AN
D GENERAL WORKERS' UNIONSUBJECT:1. Appeal, by the Company, against a Rights
Commissioner'sRecommendation No. B.C. 37/89.BACKGROUND:2. The case relates
to cancellation of overtime at short noticedue to the non-availability of a nu
mber of workers who hadoriginally agreed to work the overtime. On Friday 3rd
February,1989, the crew of 42 workers on the conveyer line whichmanufactures a
particular wiring harness, were requested to workfour hours overtime on Monday
6th February. Six people said theywould not be available while the remaining
thirty six said theywould. On the Monday one of those who had said he would
beavailable was absent, leaving a shortfall of seven. In the courseof the da
y, a further six operators said that they were not nowwilling to work overtime
that evening, leaving a total shortfallof thirteen from the crew of forty two.
Twenty nine workersremained who were willing work the overtime. Management
decidedin the light of the shortfall, to cancel the overtime for thatevening.
The workers were informed of this at 3.50 p.m. TheUnion submitted a claim fo
r payment for the overtime to the twentynine. The Company was not prepared to
make such payment and thematter was referred to a Rights Commissioner. It is
custom andpractice that 24 hours notice of cancellation of overtime is to beg
iven by the Company. The Rights Commissioner investigated thedispute on 14th
April, 1989 and on 20th April, issued thefollowing findings and recommendation:
- "Findings Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I have come
to the following conclusions: 1. I believe management was placed in a ver
y unenviable dilemna on the Monday. 2. I must accept the validi
ty of management's contention that the number available on Monday to wo
rk overtime did not represent a workable team.
3. However, overriding all of these matter is the admitted fact
that by agreement it is established within Packard Electric that at lea
st twenty four hours notice should be given before overtime is cancelle
d. Recommendation In the light of the above I must recommend that i
n accordance with the long standing agreement between union and management
it is now the obligation of the Company to recompense the twenty nine
persons for the overtime hours involved in the cancellation. In maki
ng this recommendation I must also turn to the trade unions and say that th
ey must lean more heavily on individuals who welch on undertakings already
given that they will work overtime."The Company on 3rd July, 1989 appeal
ed this recommendation to theLabour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act,1969. The Court heard the appeal on 6th September, 1989.UNI
ON'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The Union considers that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should be upheld. Custom and practice dictates that twent
y four hours notice of cancellation of overtime must be given. This did no
t happen in the present case and so payment for the overtime should be made
to the twenty nine workers who were available for work. 2. The worke
rs could have been given alternative work to do even if it were not feasible
to work the assembly line. 3. There are a number of precedents for paym
ent for unworked overtime (examples given). 4. The workers suffered
inconvenience and, in some cases, financial loss as a result of making a com
mitment to work the overtime.COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. The Company
is appealing the Rights Commissioner's recommendation as it considers that
it is inappropriate that payment should be made for overtime not worked in t
his instance. The Company made every effort to ensure that the overtim
e would proceed as planned. It was as a result of a large number of employ
ees withdrawing from their original commitment that the overtime could not t
ake place. It would not have been feasible to train thirteen other workers
to work on the particular assembly line in such a short period of time
as was available. 2. The Company offered the employees further overtime
two weeks later which was created as a result of the original overtime n
ot being worked. This overtime was worked by the employees. 3. The
Company has also agreed to further recompense the employees concerned by wa
y of making further overtime available of the same duration as that which wa
s cancelled. 4. The Company in dealing with this matter has at all times
acted in a fair and reasonable manner.DECISION:5. It was established a
t the Court hearing that the position onthe 6th February, when the effective wo
rking of the plannedovertime was made impossible because of the absence and wit
hdrawalof so many skilled crew members, was unprecedented in the Company.The
situation was not provided for in either formal agreement orcustom and practice
. In the circumstances, and having regard tothe fact that the Company provide
d alternative overtime working ata later date, the Court does not consider that
the recommendationof the Rights Commissioner was appropriate and accordingly u
pholdsthe Company's appeal.The Court so decides.~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court Kevin Heffernan
_______________________14th September, 1989. Chair
man A.K./J.C.