Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90203 Case Number: LCR12942 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PAN PAK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings on weekend overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends the issue be resolved as follows:
(1) By acceptance of the amount offered by the Company in
full and final settlement of the dispute, or
(2) A sum equivalent to two times the loss of overtime
earnings that may arise during the period 1st July, 1990
- 30th June, 1991.
The calculation at (2) above to be the comparison of the overtime
accrued during the reference period 1st July, 1990 to 30th June,
1991 and the average overtime earned during 1986, 1987, 1988 and
1989 i.e. #75,274.
Refusal to work overtime to be calculated as overtime worked.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90203 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12942
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PAN PAK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings on
weekend overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 47 workers in the manufacture of plastic
containers, principally for the soft drinks industry. The market
is highly seasonal and in recent years the workers have worked
weekend overtime during summer periods when product demand is at a
peak. In 1989, as a consequence of exceptionally good weather,
the Company's bill for weekend overtime was #68,000. In late 1989
the Company decided to introduce machinery capable of generating
over 4 times the then production capacity. The Union claims that
the increased production facility will result in the withdrawal of
weekend overtime and is claiming compensation the loss of overtime
earnings. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement was
reached at local level and both parties were invited on 28th
December, 1989 by an Industrial Relations Officer to refer the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conferences was held on 4th April, 1990 (earliest
date suitable to the parties) at which no agreement was reached
and the matter was referred on 25th April, 1990 to a full hearing
of the Labour Court which was held on 20th June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim for compensation for loss of earnings
arises from the Company's decision to replace its present
machinery for the blowing of bottles with the latest
technology. The increased production capacity will mean that
weekend overtime will no longer be required when the new
machinery is fully operational. This will lead to a loss of
earnings for the workers concerned.
2. In similar circumstances other companies in the industry
have agreed compensation for loss of earnings, overtime or
shift at the rate of two times the annual loss. This was the
original claim but the workers concerned have agreed to divide
any settlement evenly between them.
3. The present levels of overtime will not be maintained when
the new machinery is up and running. In 1989 a total of
#68,000 was paid by the Company for weekend overtime. This
would average #2,429 per worker and is a loss which the
workers should be compensated for.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no factual basis for the Union's claim for
compensation for loss of earnings. Average overtime levels
have been maintained and there is in fact no loss of earnings
(details of overtime earnings from 1986 to June, 1990 supplied
to the Court). While overtime can never be guaranteed it is
very much on target for achieving the average levels over the
past four years.
2. In order to improve its competitive position the Company
has installed updated equipment. The equipment does not
constitute new technology as claimed by the Union.
3. Overtime is at present running at a high level. If and
when the Union can show a factual loss of overtime earnings it
can approach the Company to have the claim considered.
4. Purely as a gesture of goodwill and in an endeavour to
resolve this matter locally, the Company put forward a
proposal to give each of the employees concerned a lump sum of
#500 in full settlement of any claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends the issue be resolved as follows:
(1) By acceptance of the amount offered by the Company in
full and final settlement of the dispute, or
(2) A sum equivalent to two times the loss of overtime
earnings that may arise during the period 1st July, 1990
- 30th June, 1991.
The calculation at (2) above to be the comparison of the overtime
accrued during the reference period 1st July, 1990 to 30th June,
1991 and the average overtime earned during 1986, 1987, 1988 and
1989 i.e. #75,274.
Refusal to work overtime to be calculated as overtime worked.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
10th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.