Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90133 Case Number: LCR13021 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARROLL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED - and - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the circumstances which have given
rise to the loss of overtime among the workers concerned are such
that no compensation is warranted. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90133 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13021
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CARROLL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED
and
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns ten workers who are employed as carpenters
and their function is to provide a carpentry service to the
Company's plant, premises and promotional locations. They enjoyed
substantial overtime earnings on a regular basis up to the mid
1980's. Then, because of a downturn in demand for the Company's
product, the overtime was substantially reduced. In January, 1989
the Union submitted a claim for compensation for loss of regular
overtime earnings or alternatively the restoration of the previous
overtime arrangement. At a meeting between the parties in
November, 1989 Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
16th January, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on the
23rd February, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 6th March, 1990. A Court
hearing was held on the 31st August, 1990 (the earliest date
suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned had the facility of working regular
overtime since 1960 and possibly even before that date
(details of amounts of overtime worked since 1960 supplied to
the Court). It is obvious that over the past number of years
the workers have suffered a substantial loss of earnings
because of cutbacks in the area of overtime. The workers are
now experiencing hardship in meeting financial commitments
which they made in good faith in the 60's, 70's and 80's due
to the expectation of regular overtime continuing as long as
they remained in the employment of the Company. The workers
are now finding it difficult to maintain a standard of living
that they have been used to over the past thirty years.
2. The Union's claim for compensation for loss of overtime
earnings is nothing new to the Company and in fact
compensation for loss of earnings has been paid by the Company
to other employees in the past (details supplied to the
Court). All the Union is seeking is that the workers
concerned be treated in the same fashion.
3. The Company is sub-contracting out work which is normally
done by the employees concerned e.g. display units are now
being imported from England, and display units are being
fitted in shops countrywide by sales people. This work was
done by the workers concerned until recently. Therefore not
only has the Company eliminated overtime but it has taken work
away from the employees concerned.
4. The Union is seeking compensation in the amount of 12
hours per week over three years. Taking the 1980's as average
overtime, the average hours worked were 12 per week and
allowing for holidays and other time off the average number of
working weeks per year is 45. The total per year sought is
540 hours multiplied by three years which amounts to 1,620
hours at the present hourly rate. This is fair compensation
for lost earnings and loss of future earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reduction in overtime earnings has resulted from a
downturn in demand for the Company's products coupled with
advertising restrictions which are outside the Company's
control. Management rejects the claim that compensation is
justifiable where overtime levels fluctuate in response to
customer demands.
2. The Company accepts that overtime levels have fallen in
the carpentry section as it has throughout the plant. The
Company also recognises that claims for loss of earnings are
justifiable in certain circumstances e.g. rostered or
guaranteed overtime, reversion from shiftwork to day work,
downgrading (for reasons other than bad performance,
competence or at employees request). Such a situation does
not apply in this claim.
3. The Company rejects the Union's claim that outside
contractors are a contributory factor to the reduction in
overtime. Outside contractors were used in times of
exceptionally high demand; then, as demand fell some years ago
this work was brought back into the carpenters' workshop.
4. In the past number of years the Company has experienced
serious overmanning levels as a result of an ever decreasing
market both in home trade and exports. In an effort to
address this situation voluntary/early retirement has been
introduced in 1984, and 1988. The workforce has reduced
substantially and the Company, during these periods, would
have treated applications from carpenters favourably. It is
now difficult to maintain full-time employment for ten
carpenters with such a reduced workload.
5. No agreement exists guaranteeing overtime to carpenters,
and comparisons cannot be drawn between this claim and others
which involved guaranteed, rostered overtime. The Company
contends that acceding to this claim would have repercussive
effects in the present environment and in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the circumstances which have given
rise to the loss of overtime among the workers concerned are such
that no compensation is warranted. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
18th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.