Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91340 Case Number: AD91111 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HOWMEDICA INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation S.T. 127/91 concerning loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds that, in the light of the Agreement reached in 1989, a
valid claim for this group of workers does not exist.
The Court, therefore, does not uphold the appeal. The Court so
decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91340 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD11191
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HOWMEDICA INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation S.T. 127/91 concerning loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns 12 general workers who are employed in the
Company's maintenance department. For a number of years they
worked an average of fifteen hours overtime per week. During
discussions on the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) the
Union agreed to a Company proposal for a reduction in overtime
working throughout the plant in return for a pay increase in
excess of the terms of the P.N.R. The agreement covered all
workers in the plant. Subsequently the Union claimed compensation
for loss of overtime earnings on behalf of the workers concerned
on the grounds that their loss in overtime earnings was
substantially higher than other workers in the plant. Management
rejected the claims. The Union referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. On the 25th June, 1991 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"The claimants are caught by the majority decision of their
colleagues. This is one of the prices to be paid for Trade
Union solidarity. There is indeed a serious anomaly present
but the Union membership choose to ignore it despite it being
brought to their attention. It is neither reasonable nor
possible for the Company to dispose of the anomaly created
thus. In these circumstances I have to recommend that the
claim fails".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
investigated the dispute in Limerick on the 3rd December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the workers concerned were deployed to the
maintenance section from other areas of the plant they were
required to give a commitment to the Company that they would
make themselves available to work overtime at most unsocial
hours. They were required to work overtime far in excess of
any hours they had previously worked. This situation
continued for several years with the full cooperation of the
workers concerned. They worked about fifteen hours overtime
per week as compared to approximately five hours overtime in
other sections within the Company.
2. While the workforce accepted the Company's proposals for a
reduction in overtime hours the loss for the maintenance
section (the workers concerned) was far greater than other
areas. The Union feels that the workers concerned should be
treated separately and that additional compensation be paid to
them. They were recruited into the maintenance department on
the very clear understanding that working excessive overtime
hours would be expected of them and they gave the Company a
commitment that they would work this overtime. The workforce
were paid compensation for loss of overtime (from 5 hours to 3
hours). The overtime of the workers concerned dropped from 15
hours resulting in a loss of 11 hours as against 2 hours for
other sections. The Union requests the Court to recommend
that the Company pay pro-rata compensation to the workers in
accordance with their losses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement reached in 1989 was negotiated between the
Company and the Union on behalf of all their workers in the
plant. Employees received an increase of £12 on basic rates
in return for a reduction in the level of overtime. The
agreement covered all Union members, regardless of the level
of overtime. The Company agrees that workers who suffered no
loss benefited from the agreement. However the Company was
committed to a minimum level of three hours, and any extra
hours were the individual workers' own good fortune. The same
criteria applied to the workers concerned.
2. In a previous claim involving the Company and the Union
(in a similar situation) the Court recommended against the
payment of compensation for loss of overtime earnings (L.C.R.
10174 refers). It should be noted that since the reduction,
substantial levels of additional overtime have been refused by
the workers concerned. Members of another Union in the
Company, who received the same compensation as the workers
concerned, currently work in excess of three hours. However,
the base of 3 hours overtime is fully accepted by the workers.
Any concession in relation to this claim would have an
immediate knock-on effect and the Company would have no choice
but to review its policy in relation to the long term
scheduling of overtime.
3. The Rights Commissioner confirmed in his recommendation
that the claim was barred under the P.N.R.; clearly it is also
precluded by the terms of the P.E.S.P. The Company is unique
in having already paid compensation on the basic rates of pay.
The Company's current basic pay rate in general maintenance is
among the highest rate for pay of like work in the country.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds that, in the light of the Agreement reached in 1989, a
valid claim for this group of workers does not exist.
The Court, therefore, does not uphold the appeal. The Court so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
17th December, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.