Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91194 Case Number: AD9169 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: JOHN A. WOOD LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. G.C.24/90 concerning the allocation of overtime between two machine drivers at the Company's Garryhesta Depot.
Recommendation:
6. The Court accepts the employer's right to allocate overtime
but this should be done on an equitable manner.
The parties accept that an operator stays with his machine when it
is being used outside normal hours and that operators can use each
other's machines normally only in the event of absences.
In these circumstances the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should stand and that the Company
should now make every effort to provide extra overtime
opportunities for the claimant on other than CAT 980 work in order
to balance the overtime worked by him and the CAT 980 operator.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91194 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6991
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: JOHN A. WOOD LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. G.C.24/90 concerning the allocation of overtime
between two machine drivers at the Company's Garryhesta Depot.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a major supplier of sand and gravel in the
Munster area. It operates a quarry at Garryhesta where the raw
materials are processed and loaded for delivery to customers.
Worker A operates a CAT.966 which is a face shovel and is used for
taking the raw materials from the quarry face. During the
traditionally busy season (i.e. April to September) there is
overtime normally available to worker A but during the rest of the
year overtime for him normally ceases. Worker B operates a
CAT.980 which is a loading shovel and is used to load lorries with
sand and gravel. Due to customer requirements there is a need for
early starts and late finishes throughout the year to provide the
loading service. Worker B therefore has overtime available to him
during the traditionally slack season as well as the traditionally
busy season. The Union claims that there should be a more even
distribution of overtime between the two workers concerned. The
Company rejects the claim. Worker B does not support the Union's
claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner who
investigated the matter on 12th February, 1991 and issued the
following recommendation on 1st March, 1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Company should seriously consider
overtime opportunities for Worker A in other areas, in order
that the difference in earnings may be addressed.
However, I recommend that the "status quo" should remain with
regard to the overtime earnings for Worker B on the CAT.980.
(The workers were named in the recommendation).
The Union appealed against the recommendation under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal in Cork on 13th June, 1991. Worker B attended the appeal
hearing and was represented by Colm Burke and Company, Solicitors,
who made a written and oral submission on his behalf.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Worker A has 34 years overall service with the Company
and is the most senior of the two drivers concerned. Over
the years he has been unfairly treated in relation to the
distribution of overtime working. The Union is anxious to
have the matter rectified.
2. Management have argued that the CAT.966 is not as
efficient as the CAT.980 for loading lorries, that the
CAT.980 has a bigger loading shovel and can get the lorries
out of the yard quicker. However, the argument is only valid
when used in the context of the busy period. The overtime
working in dispute is that which is worked in the slack
period, outside of normal working hours, when the number of
lorries waiting to be loaded is not more than one or two, at
any one time. It should be noted that the loading of lorries
is only a small part of Worker B's duties when he works on
Saturday during the slack period as he also has general
housekeeping duties assigned to him.
3. Worker A takes over the duties of Worker B during
periods of absence and operates the CAT.980. There has never
been any problem in relation to the operation or maintenance
of the CAT.980 by Worker A.
4. The Union recognises that Worker B could suffer a loss
in overtime earnings as a result of its claim. However all
other sections at the depot share their overtime during the
slack period and Worker B's high earnings are at the expense
of Worker A. In recognition of worker B's position the Union
proposed that a rota be drawn up which would allow Worker B
to retain the greater share of the overtime. The proposal
was rejected by Worker B and by the Company.
WORKER B's ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Worker B is employed by the Company since 1960. He is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the CAT.980.
The present work procedures and hours of work have not
changed for many years and no alteration should be made in
respect of the sharing of overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. All the Company's quarries and pits operate a system
whereby the drivers of mobile equipment always drive a
machine that is assigned to them. The reason for this is
that such machines are very expensive and good care and
maintenance is more successfully accomplished by keeping the
same driver with the same machine. Any change in this
practice would have repercussions throughout the 15 separate
locations in the Company.
2. The CAT.980 operated by Driver B is designed for the
loading of trucks and lorries. It is far superior to the
CAT.966 for loading. The use of the CAT.966 for loading
would lead to a loss of production and delays for customers.
3. The Company has the responsibility to determine and
allocate work and overtime. If a particular machine is
busier than another then the driver of the busier machine
gets more overtime. The Company tries where possible to
distribute overtime evenly but there are wide variations due
to the demands in the various Company operations. In this
particular case the Company has carried out its
responsibilities in a fair manner.
DECISION:
6. The Court accepts the employer's right to allocate overtime
but this should be done on an equitable manner.
The parties accept that an operator stays with his machine when it
is being used outside normal hours and that operators can use each
other's machines normally only in the event of absences.
In these circumstances the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should stand and that the Company
should now make every effort to provide extra overtime
opportunities for the claimant on other than CAT 980 work in order
to balance the overtime worked by him and the CAT 980 operator.
The Court so decides.
~ Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th August, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman