Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92445 Case Number: LCR13773 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TRETORN SPORTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the maintenance workers for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is satisfied that some overtime will still be available to the
employees concerned in this dispute. It is not possible to
estimate what that overtime may amount to.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that the Company
should pay compensation for loss of overtime and the removal of
the guarantee of regular weekly overtime.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claimants with a minimum
of 5 years service be paid a sum of #3,500 and those with less
than 5 years be paid #1,800 in respect of both aspects of the
dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92445 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13773
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TRETORN SPORTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the maintenance workers for compensation for loss of
overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures tennis balls and employs a
workforce of 130. The claim relates to the proposal by the
Company to eliminate Saturday overtime worked by maintenance
workers. The overtime on Saturdays began in the early 1980's
when a maintenance worker resigned and the Company did not
re-employ another worker. The time/cost was made up by 5x5
hours overtime between the remaining 5 workers.
2. In 1990, the complement of maintenance workers was
increased to 7 and the Company decided not to continue with
overtime on an unlimited basis. Negotiations were the subject
of conciliation conferences by the Labour Relations Commission
on 21st May, 1992 and 11th June, 1992.
3. The Union sought compensation totalling 5 times the annual
loss (#80 per week or #4,000 p.a. approx.). The Company
offered an initial lump sum. This would allow for an
assessment of the loss in overtime over a period of 3-12
months. Alternatively the Company was prepared to offer #250
per year of service as a buy-out of the "guarantee" aspect.
This was unacceptable to the Union. No progress on the
dispute was possible at conciliation and it was referred to
the Labour Court on 23rd July, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Portlaoise on 8th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The guarantee of Saturday overtime was agreed with the
Company in 1981 and since that time all maintenance workers
have worked on Saturday without instruction or request. It
has become an integral part of earnings and its proposed
elimination has serious financial implications for the
workers. The workers have rejected a trial basis working
outside the guarantee because they lack confidence that it
would produce an equitable or assessable means of accurate
calculation of loss.
2. Despite the negotiations with the Company the workers fear
that this is the first step in the total elimination by the
Company of overtime. The Union is prepared to negotiate on
its claim but unfortunately this is not reciprocated by the
Company.
3. The elimination of Saturday overtime would result in a
grave loss to the workers, who had a clear understanding that
the agreement on Saturday working would be unaffected (details
supplied). On this basis, many financial decisions were made
by the workers. The agreement has been in operation since
1981 and the workers have a reasonable expectation of a
substantial settlement because of the financial loss involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union argue about an alleged agreement regarding
guaranteed overtime. The Company, on examination of the
records can find nothing to support such a contention. If
such an agreement was entered into it was related to the drop
in numbers of maintenance workers. This is no longer the case
and it is not necessary for a full complement of maintenance
workers to work every Saturday.
2. The claim by the Union is completely outside the norms
that exist currently for such claims. The claim is based on a
total elimination of overtime which will not happen. The
Company is satisfied that there will always be a need for
overtime but is is not possible to quantify the amount at this
stage.
3. The claim if conceded, would be unfair to workers who have
enjoyed overtime for longer than their counterparts (details
supplied). Any formula arrived at must take into account
years of service It is impossible to assess the actual loss
to the workers at this stage as some overtime will always be
necessary. The Union's claim is unrealistic as it is far in
excess of redundancy payments in the Company. It should be
seen in the light of lay-offs in other areas of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is satisfied that some overtime will still be available to the
employees concerned in this dispute. It is not possible to
estimate what that overtime may amount to.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that the Company
should pay compensation for loss of overtime and the removal of
the guarantee of regular weekly overtime.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claimants with a minimum
of 5 years service be paid a sum of #3,500 and those with less
than 5 years be paid #1,800 in respect of both aspects of the
dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
5th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.