Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92693 Case Number: AD9313 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST38/92 concerning compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court does not find
grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly the Company should make the recommended payment.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92693 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1393
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST38/92 concerning compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in the warehouse area of the
plant at Tullamore. He worked overtime on a regular basis for six
and a half years. In February, 1991, the Company restructured its
operation and informed the worker that he would no longer be
required to work overtime. The Union submitted a claim for loss
of earnings. Management rejected the claim. On the 30th
September, 1992, the issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. In his findings (para 2)
the Rights Commissioner stated "this overtime was regular and
rostered and had become institutionalised by any reasonable
definition". On the 12th October, 1992, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation:-
"In all the circumstances, particularly those in 2 above, I
recommend that the claimant is paid #500 in full and final
settlement of all his claims".
On the 12th November, 1992, the Company appealed the
recommendation to the the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in
Tullamore on the 10th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was employed in a key position
and was the main liaison between the Company's Tullamore and
Longford plants. He was required to work regular rostered
overtime for six and a half years (details supplied to the
Court). He suffered a substantial loss of earnings as a
result of the Company's decision to eliminate this overtime.
2. The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner goes some
way towards compensating the worker for his loss. The Union
asks the Court to uphold the recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, in order to maintain long-term viability,
was forced to reduce costs including the elimination of
overtime in the warehouse. The Company must retain the right
to take such a decision without paying compensation.
2. The Company, due to a downturn in markets, is in a
serious financial position and cannot afford to concede such
claims.
3. The Rights Commissioner's award is excessive. In a
similar claim involving workers at the Company's Longford
plant the Labour Court recommended that six employees be paid
#100 each (LCR12330 refers).
DECISION:
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court does not find
grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly the Company should make the recommended payment.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
25th February, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman