Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91323 Case Number: AD9193 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST106/90 concerning a claim on behalf of a worker for compensation in respect of reduced overtime earnings for year 1989/1990.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the views of the parties as
outlined in their oral and written submissions, accepts the unions
argument that the reference to the rate of pay for time served
craftsmen has no relevance to the case. The Court however finds
there are no grounds for amending the substantive thrust of the
Rights Commissioners recommendation. Accordingly the Court
rejects the appeal of the union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91323 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9391
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1991
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST106/90 concerning a claim on behalf of a
worker for compensation in respect of reduced overtime earnings
for year 1989/1990.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures medical syringes and needles at its
Plant in Drogheda. It employs 240 personnel and operates
continuous running Monday to Friday.
3. The worker involved in this claim carried out absentee cover,
cleaning duties and other work as required in the syringe
department during the period relating to the claim. He is now
employed in the packaging area within the syringe department.
4. In 1987 the duties of the worker, along with others, were
changed in accordance with an 1986 agreement (details supplied to
the Court). Sometime after these changes representations were
made to management by some syringe operators that the worker had
unfair access to overtime. This was based on the fact that he
carried out service activities as opposed to working on a
particular line. In addition he worked overtime within a direct
operator group.
5. The management reviewed its overtime requirements and noted
the grievances of the syringe operators. Following the changes
the workers overtime earnings were unaffected in the 1987/1988 and
1988/1989 years. However, his overtime earnings fell in the
1989/1990 year and the Union lodged a claim in respect of this
loss, on the basis that the fall in his overtime earnings was due
to his removal from the overtime rota in the machine area. The
Company rejected the claim and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 22nd April, 1991, and on
12th May, 1991 he issued the following findings:-
"1. The claimant's grievance is dated 1989/1990 when the
whole question of the future viability of the plant was
called into question by the parent Company.
2. The claimant had been among the top earners in 1989.
His earnings dropped by £3,000 or £4,000 to £12,800 p/a.
This latter figure still represents substantial earnings for
an operative grade in Industry.
3. I am satisfied that there were some complaints from
other operators regarding the claimant's easy access to
overtime to their exclusion. I do appreciate that in
working in other areas that the claimant performed a useful
service at that time for the Company. This service is no
longer required in the same manner.
4. I am equally satisfied that in the tax year 1989/1990
overtime fell across the plant. In addition the claimant
was missing for some 7 weeks due to illness."
and he also recommended:-
"I am not satisfied that the Company set out to deliberately
and unfairly discriminate against the claimant in the matter
of overtime allocation.
I cannot accept the claimant's written statement that he saw
his earnings "drop to a very low £12,805 in the year ending
April, 1990". There are many time served craftsmen in this
state working for a lot less. In all the circumstances I
recommend that the claim for a return to the rota fails".
6. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal in Dundalk on 8th October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker's overtime earnings fell as a result of
Management's decision to remove him from the machine
operators' rota for overtime. The worker had an established
right to this rota as he had been on it for a number of years
and was always available for overtime.
2. A similar worker on another shift was retained on the
rota. This restricted the worker's opportunity to earn
overtime within his own grade.
3. The Rights Commissioner failed to address the issue
which was submitted to him i.e. compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
4. The Rights Commissioner's reference to the rate of pay
for time served craftsmen has no relevance to the case
submitted to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker's removal from the rota did not adversely
affect his overtime earnings as there was no significant
change in his earnings in the two years following the change.
2. The worker's overtime earnings, along with everyone else
in the plant, decreased during the year 1989/1990 as a result
of adverse trading conditions (details supplied to the Court).
In addition the worker was absent for seven weeks that year
due to illness.
DECISION:
9. The Court, having considered the views of the parties as
outlined in their oral and written submissions, accepts the unions
argument that the reference to the rate of pay for time served
craftsmen has no relevance to the case. The Court however finds
there are no grounds for amending the substantive thrust of the
Rights Commissioners recommendation. Accordingly the Court
rejects the appeal of the union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
8th November, 1991 -------------
M.D/U.S. Deputy Chairman