Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89348 Case Number: LCR12543 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DOLPHIN PACKAGING LTD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION |
The payment at premium rates for overtime worked by part-time workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions and evidence of the
parties and is of the view that having regard to the terms of the
Company/Union agreement and to general practice, there are not
adequate grounds to recommend concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89348 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12543
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DOLPHIN PACKAGING LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The payment at premium rates for overtime worked by part-time
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced operations in April, 1988. It is a
subsidiary of Dolphin Packaging PLC based in Poole England. It
extrudes thermoforms and sells plastic egg boxes in the domestic
and export markets and is also engaged in the manufacture of
mushroom pullets. There are forty seven workers employed in the
Company. In April, 1988, a comprehensive house agreement was
signed by the Company and Union. Clause eleven of that agreement
states:-
"It is a condition of employment that all employees shall at
the request of the company work all reasonable overtime
required. Any employee who refuses to work reasonable
overtime as required may be liable to dismissal having taken
into account all the circumstances. Overtime rates are set
out in Appendix 4".
Appendix 4 of the agreement states:-
"Overtime rates apply only after 40 hours normal work has
been completed (excluding early start)".
The labelling and packaging area of the Company employs twenty
female part-time workers. They work a five day, twenty five hour
week by way of a three cycle shift. Shift hours operate as
follows:-
8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
1.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.
6.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
The 6.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m. shift attracts a ten per cent premium.
The basic rate of pay for this work (plus an agreed remanning
bonus) for forty hours is #128.60 which results in a payment of
#81.99 for the twenty five and one half hours worked by the
labellers/packers (workers report for duty six minutes before the
commencement of each shift, thus accumulating one half hour in
addition to shift hours). The Union contends that overtime rates
should apply for time worked by labellers/packers in excess of
twenty five and one half hours, while the Company rejects the
claim stating that overtime rates will apply only when forty hours
of normal work has been completed. The dispute was the subject of
a Labour Court conciliation conference on 12th May, 1989. No
agreement was reached and the Union requested a full Court
hearing. The Company agreed and the Court investigated the
dispute in Dundalk on 16th August, 1989 (the earliest date
suitable to all parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An agreement which refers to overtime rates applicable
only after forty hours of normal work is discriminatory to
workers who have a specified twenty five and one half hour
working week.
2. Paragraph eleven of the house agreement makes it a
condition of employment that all employees shall, at the
request of the Company, work all reasonable overtime as
required - refusal to work overtime may lead to dismissal. As
the normal working week for some workers is twenty five and
one half hours, it is reasonable that time worked in excess of
normal working hours should be paid at the agreed overtime
rates.
3. When the Company/Union agreement was drawn up the Union
negotiators understood that equity of treatment would be
across the board for all employees in all aspects.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has encountered particular difficulties
since it commenced operations in April, 1988. Expectations of
sales growth have not materialised and the Company has
suffered a substantial loss. Accordingly, labellers/packers
work overtime infrequently.
2. Clause eleven of the Company/Union agreement clearly
states that overtime rates will only apply after forty hours
work in any one week. The Company has interpreted the
overtime clause in a liberal manner, to the benefit of workers
concerned with the dispute, as overtime rates are applied
after completion of eight hours work in any one day. The
Company is not prepared to concede a claim governed by an
existing house agreement to which the Union is a signatory.
3. Concession of the claim would place the Company at a
competitive disadvantage when compared to its sister plant in
England where overtime is paid on the same basis as that
presently at issue.
4. 4. The Union's claim is in complete contravention of the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery. The Company, in
giving effect to this agreement from 1st May, 1988,
specifically stated that the no further cost-increasing claims
provision would apply (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions and evidence of the
parties and is of the view that having regard to the terms of the
Company/Union agreement and to general practice, there are not
adequate grounds to recommend concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
4th September, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman