Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92702 Case Number: LCR13929 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNITED PHARMACISTS CO-OPERATIVE - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of one driver, for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court gave consideration to the submissions of the parties
and have come to the conclusion that the parties should meet and
agree proposals that would ensure an equal distribution of
overtime.
On the question of compensation for loss of past overtime, the
Court, on the basis of the evidence presented is not satisfied
that the claim has been sustained. The Court accordingly does not
recommend payment of compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92702 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13929
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNITED PHARMACISTS CO-OPERATIVE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of one driver, for compensation
for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the warehousing, marketing and
distribution of retail pharmacy products. It employs 60 workers.
In 1989, following an investigation and report by the Irish
Productivity Centre (I.P.C.), a rationalisation plan was
implemented and the parties reached agreement on new standards of
operation in relation to deliveries. Compensation payments were
made to workers, including the worker concerned, in respect of a
loss of overtime which resulted. The agreement stipulated that
there would be 3 hours guaranteed overtime but this was phased out
in June, 1991. Subsequently the Union claimed that the worker
concerned suffered a significant reduction in his earnings over
the past two years. The Union also claimed the restoration of the
3 hours overtime to the worker concerned. Management rejected the
claim. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on the 3rd March, 1992. Conciliation conferences were held on the
8th April and 19th June, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 18th November, 1992. A Court hearing was held
on the 14th December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company gave an undertaking that the earnings of
drivers would be maintained following the rationalisation of
routes, and that work would be available to ensure no loss of
earnings. This did not occur in the case of the worker
concerned and he repeatedly made representations to Management
on the issue. While the other drivers enjoyed additional
earnings, the worker concerned has suffered an ongoing loss of
earnings amounting to #2,482 since 1990. (Details supplied to
the Court). He has been unfairly treated in not being given
equal opportunity with other drivers (including the most
junior driver) to benefit from overtime earnings through extra
suitable routes. He is entitled to compensation for the loss.
He must also be given equality of overtime earnings potential
and the Company should restore the 3 hours overtime to the
worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned has been offered numerous
opportunities by the Company to avail of extra overtime
earnings including extra country runs and Saturday work.
Other drivers have undertaken these duties to enhance their
earnings. The worker has refused most of this overtime. He
claims that he should receive overtime payments on his normal
scheduled runs. The Company rejected this claim because the
standards are set in line with I.P.C. recommendations and
other drivers do the same runs without a requirement for
overtime.
2. The Company, in order to remain competitive, has undergone
substantial change in the past five years. It has to remain
efficient to survive in a very competitive industry. In
restructuring and rationalising routes, the Company paid
substantial compensatory lump sums to drivers including the
worker concerned. The rescheduled routes involved some
changes and though in some cases overtime hours were lost, all
drivers have had ample opportunities to more than make up for
this by taking on additional routes. The worker has had the
same opportunities but has refused to do the additional work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court gave consideration to the submissions of the parties
and have come to the conclusion that the parties should meet and
agree proposals that would ensure an equal distribution of
overtime.
On the question of compensation for loss of past overtime, the
Court, on the basis of the evidence presented is not satisfied
that the claim has been sustained. The Court accordingly does not
recommend payment of compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
20th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.