Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92773 Case Number: LCR13937 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD GAIS EASTERN REGION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for compensation in respect of loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
8. It appears to the Court that the cessation of the Contractors
Agreement (1987) had an effect on the overtime earnings of the
claimants. Nevertheless the Court has come to the conclusion that
as they were not covered by that Agreement it can see no grounds
upon which it can recommend payment of the #8,000 as contained in
Labour Court Recommendation No. 13689.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92773 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13937
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD GAIS EASTERN REGION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of loss of overtime
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Bord Gais acquired Dublin Gas in 1986 after it had gone into
receivership.
3. In June, 1992 a New Comprehensive Work Agreement was put in
place following lengthy negotiations and issue of Labour Court
Recommendation LCR13689. The new agreement replaced three
previous agreements, one of which was the Contractors' Overtime
Guarantee Agreement, 1987.
4. The new agreement provided for greater flexibility and
increased productivity mainly through changes in work practices,
reduction in overtime working and unrestricted use of contractors.
In return compensation was paid to certain groups of workers, as
well as improvements in the Company Pension Scheme and a general
wage increase as recommended in LCR13689.
5. Under the new Agreement 100 workers employed in the
maintenance section of the Distribution Department covered by the
Contractors Overtime Guarantee Agreement, 1987 were paid a lump
sum of #8,000 for its buy-out. The Union subsequently lodged a
claim on behalf of 22 workers employed in (1) the Garage, (2)
Engineering and Planning and Distribution and (3) Administration
Departments for a similar payment in respect of loss of overtime
earnings. The Company rejected the claim and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 23rd September,
1992. A conciliation conference was held on 6th November, 1992.
As no agreement was reached the Commission with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 15th
December, 1992 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took
place on 18th January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned, although not directly covered by
the 1987 Agreement, were affected by it in that they provided
a back-up service to the maintenance crews. They were
expected to work the same overtime hours as the maintenance
crews.
2. The overtime worked formed an integral part of the
workers' earnings.
3. Instructions to cease overtime working were issued to the
workers' concerned at the same time as instructions issued to
maintenance crews.
4. The terms of the 1987 Agreement were applied in practice
to the workers. They will suffer a loss as a result of the
withdrawal of its guarantees and as a result are entitled to
the relevant compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company and the Unions accepted the terms of LCR13689.
The Union is now seeking to extend its terms to three
additional groups of workers.
2. The compensation lump sum of #8,000 was paid to all
eligible workers covered by the 1987 Agreement. It covered
changes in staffing, shift and overtime etc. In return the
Company acquired the right to an unrestricted use of
contractors.
3. Extension of the terms of LCR13689 would undermine the
terms of the new Comprehensive Work Agreement.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would have repercussive
effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. It appears to the Court that the cessation of the Contractors
Agreement (1987) had an effect on the overtime earnings of the
claimants. Nevertheless the Court has come to the conclusion that
as they were not covered by that Agreement it can see no grounds
upon which it can recommend payment of the #8,000 as contained in
Labour Court Recommendation No. 13689.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
2nd February, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.