Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90220 Case Number: LCR12884 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFF'S ASSOCIATION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the overtime rate payable to garage foremen between midnight and 8 a.m.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is obliged to uphold the Company position as it is
in line with the Company/Union National Agreement. However the
Court considers that the Unions' claim is reasonable in light of
conditions applying to other staff in the Company and recommends
that it be seriously addressed in the context of upcoming work
changes to be negotiated with Unions in respect of the claimants.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90220 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12884
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN BUS
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFF'S ASSOCIATION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the overtime rate payable to garage foremen
between midnight and 8 a.m.
BACKGROUND:
2. At a meeting held in February, 1989 to discuss the overtime
rates payable to garage foremen the Company informed the Unions
that the Auditors had recently discovered that the workers
concerned had been paid at the wrong rate of overtime. The
Company stated that under the 1972 National Agreement the foremen
should have been paid at the rate of time and a half for all
overtime worked between midnight and 8 a.m. Monday to Friday.
Instead they had been paid at double time since 1977.
3. The Company stated that in future the foremen would be paid at
the rate of time and a half. The Unions' claimed the restoration
of double time for the overtime concerned. The Company rejected
the claim and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on 4th September, 1989. A conciliation
conference was held on 3rd October, 1989. As no agreement was
reached the parties subsequently consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 16th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The double time rate had been applied for over 12 years
and as all other grades supervised by the foremen are on
double time for similar duty, the double time rate should be
restored to the workers concerned. Restoration of the payment
by way of an additional clause in the National Agreement would
have no repercussive effects either within the other groups of
grades in the Company or in other C.I.E. subsidiary companies.
2. In 1979 the Unions lodged a claim for double time payment
for Sundays. This claim was conceded by the Company. As the
foremen were already in receipt of double time for the rest of
the week obviously this was not included in the claim at that
time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. However, the
fact that garage supervisors were paid incorrect overtime
rates for some considerable time is not a valid reason for
continuing a malpractice. The Court has previously heard a
similar case and decided that overtime rates should be paid as
per Company/Union agreements despite an incorrect practice
which crept in and was inadvertently allowed to continue for a
period of time.
2. Although, the staff supervised are paid on the basis of
double time this is as a result of a separate agreement and
has no bearing on rates of overtime payable to garage
supervisory staff who are paid according to the Supervisors
National Agreement. Supervisors have their own conditions of
service many items of which such as sick leave entitlements,
pension etc. are better than the corresponding conditions for
operative grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is obliged to uphold the Company position as it is
in line with the Company/Union National Agreement. However the
Court considers that the Unions' claim is reasonable in light of
conditions applying to other staff in the Company and recommends
that it be seriously addressed in the context of upcoming work
changes to be negotiated with Unions in respect of the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
29th May, 1990. Chairman
M.D./J.C.