Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91132 Case Number: LCR13239 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings arising from the cessation of Saturday overtime for one worker at the Company's Galway garage.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the issues raised by the parties in
their submissions oral and written.
Given all the circumstances of this case the Court does not find
grounds for the payment of compensation for the loss of overtime
and accordingly rejects the claim of the Union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91132 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13239
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings
arising from the cessation of Saturday overtime for one worker at
the Company's Galway garage.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
22nd March, 1987 as an engineering operative group 2. In April,
1988 a vacancy arose in the garage office for an engineering
operative group 1. The job mainly involves the issue of
requisition forms for vehicle parts. The occupant had normally
worked 10 hours overtime per week (i.e. 2 hours per week-day).
The Company claims that applicants for the vacancy were informed
that the overtime working which had existed would no longer arise.
The worker concerned applied for the vacant position and was
appointed in May, 1988. In May 1989 management discovered that
the worker concerned had worked overtime of 12 hours per week
since his appointment (i.e. 9 hours during the week and 3 hours on
Saturday). On 15th May, 1989 the worker concerned was instructed
by the Company not to work any further overtime. The matter was
raised at a conciliation conference on 30th May, 1989 concerning a
dispute arising from the Company's rationalisation plans for the
Galway garage. The Company agreed at the conciliation conference
to restore the 9 hours week-day overtime to the worker concerned.
The Union claims that the worker should be compensated for the
loss of Saturday overtime. The Company rejects the claim. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 6th November, 1989. Conciliation conferences were held
on 15th November, 1989 and 13th September, 1990 at which no
agreement was reached. The matter was referred on 26th February,
1991 to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Labour Court investigated the dispute on 6th March, 1991 in
Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's predecessor worked 10 hours overtime per
week. The worker continued this practice and also worked
overtime on Saturday so that parts could be issued. His
predecessor did not do overtime on Saturdays but it was there
for him if he wanted it.
2. The Company was aware that the worker operated on overtime
and authorised overtime payments to him. He did not work of
his own free-will. There was work to be done on overtime
which was authorised by the Company.
3. The Union is not prepared to progress other talks
concerning the Company's rationalisation plans for the Galway
garage until this dispute is resolved. The worker concerned
should receive the normal level of compensation for loss of
earnings in order that other major issues of benefit to the
Company can be discussed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was made clear to the worker concerned when he was
appointed to the vacant position in May, 1988 that overtime
for the job no longer existed. He accepted the position on
that condition. He subsequently worked overtime and this fact
did not come to Management's attention until May, 1989.
2. In the past compensation for loss of earnings was afforded
to workers whose established pattern of earnings was reduced
due to productivity/re-organisation schemes. This criteria is
not met in this case as the worker could not have any
expectancy of overtime working.
3. During conciliation conferences concerning a dispute
arising from the Company's rationalisation plans for its
Galway garage, the Company agreed to restore week-day overtime
to the worker concerned, pending a study of the garage
workload requirements by its Organisation and Methods Section.
The study was carried out in December, 1989 and the findings
in relation to the worker's position were that overtime should
be dispensed with immediately. This confirmed Management's
position that there is no need for overtime working on
Saturdays and week-days.
4. The Company's serious financial position is well known.
Competition with private operators is intense. In these
circumstances the Company must operate in the most economic
way possible. It is incumbent on the Company that unnecessary
overtime working is eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the issues raised by the parties in
their submissions oral and written.
Given all the circumstances of this case the Court does not find
grounds for the payment of compensation for the loss of overtime
and accordingly rejects the claim of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
27th March, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.