Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91590 Case Number: LCR13557 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DE LA RUE SMURFIT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings on behalf of two drivers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered all of the views put forward by
the parties in their oral and written submissions together with
the relevant correspondence finds there was a commitment on the
part of the drivers to work overtime to meet the needs of the
Company's customers.
Whilst the Court accepts there was no guarantee of overtime the
requirements of the customers created a reasonable expectation
that overtime would be required and that there was an obligation
to meet the Company needs in this respect.
The Court notes that there have been changes in demand and
reduction in the Company business which have resulted in a general
reduction in overtime worked.
In view of the circumstances of the drivers, the demands on them
and the obligation to meet those demands, the Court considers
there should be compensation paid for the loss of overtime.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the drivers be paid a sum
equivalent to 52 times the average actual weekly loss (based on
the loss incurred in the 12 months following the implementation of
changes compared with the previous 12 months earnings) in full and
final settlement of their claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91590 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13557
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DE LA RUE SMURFIT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings on behalf
of two drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the security printing business and
employs 160 people.
3. In October, 1984 an agreement was entered into concerning the
working conditions of drivers. Under the Agreement the drivers
were required to be available for overtime working at management's
discretion. Over the years the drivers have worked considerable
overtime.
4. In May, 1989 the Company proposed to alter the working
conditions of the drivers which would effectively eliminate
overtime working. The Union lodged a claim to buy-out the
overtime at a rate of £50 per week guaranteed for five years and
sought an assurance that the changes negotiated would guarantee
the drivers' overtime. The Company rejected the claim on the
basis that overtime was not guaranteed but was dependent on
customer requirements.
5. The changes were negotiated and it was agreed to refer the
issue of the drivers' losses to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 18th June and 8th November,
1991. As no Agreement was reached the Commission, with the
consent of the parties, referred the claim to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 11th November, 1991 under
Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Court hearing was held on 3rd December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It was part of the drivers' conditions of employment that
they be available to work overtime at all times. Hence the
overtime was guaranteed. Other groups within the factory had
the option of working overtime and could refuse to do so if
they wished.
2. The workers worked considerable overtime throughout the
eighties and have arranged their domestic circumstances
accordingly. Since the overtime was withdrawn last year they
have incurred substantial losses (details supplied to the
Court) which have resulted in great hardship on them and their
families.
3. The Union accepts that the Company must gear its delivery
service to meet customer demands. However the changes have
had a traumatic affect on the workers. Under the
circumstances the claim for compensation is reasonable.
Similar claims involving other companies have been conceded in
the past.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The level of overtime worked by drivers in the Company has
always been determined by customer demands. Overtime has
never been guaranteed.
2. Customer demands and a reduction in orders have led to a
contraction of the Company's business.
3. Other groups have had a reduction in their overtime
earnings. Concession of this claim would lead to repercussive
claims with major implications for the future of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered all of the views put forward by
the parties in their oral and written submissions together with
the relevant correspondence finds there was a commitment on the
part of the drivers to work overtime to meet the needs of the
Company's customers.
Whilst the Court accepts there was no guarantee of overtime the
requirements of the customers created a reasonable expectation
that overtime would be required and that there was an obligation
to meet the Company needs in this respect.
The Court notes that there have been changes in demand and
reduction in the Company business which have resulted in a general
reduction in overtime worked.
In view of the circumstances of the drivers, the demands on them
and the obligation to meet those demands, the Court considers
there should be compensation paid for the loss of overtime.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the drivers be paid a sum
equivalent to 52 times the average actual weekly loss (based on
the loss incurred in the 12 months following the implementation of
changes compared with the previous 12 months earnings) in full and
final settlement of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
13th February, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.