Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92585 Case Number: REA9223 Section / Act: S32 Parties: A WEAR - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Alleged breach of Clause 3 of the Registered Employment Agreement (R.E.A.) for the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footwear, Drapery and Allied Trades.
Recommendation:
5. The R.E.A. for the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footwear, Drapery
and Allied Trades has not been varied significantly (other than
for wages) since 1982. The Court is aware that, in the
intervening period, there have been various developments in
trading and staffing practices that are not provided for or
reflected in the current R.E.A. and that there is need for the
Union and the F.I.E. to negotiate an up-dating.
The Union has sought an interpretation of Clause 3 of the
agreement in respect of a specific occurrence, but the Court is of
the view that this clause can only be considered along with Clause
4 and Clause 8 (b)(i). Clause 4 does not reflect current practice
and clause 8(b)(i) does not define pro-rata application in an
over-time situation.
In the circumstances the Court does not find that a compelling
case has been established by the Union that the Company is in
breach of the R.E.A.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92585 ORDER NO REA2392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
SECTION 32
PARTIES: A WEAR
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
Irish Distributive and Administrative Trade Union
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged breach of Clause 3 of the Registered Employment
Agreement (R.E.A.) for the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footwear,
Drapery and Allied Trades.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 17th and 18th July, 1992, part-time workers of the
Company employed at the Ilac Centre worked after normal
shop-closing time to prepare the store for a sale. They were paid
at flat rate. The Union contends that the workers should have
been paid at the overtime rate of time and one half and that the
Company is in breach of Clause 3 of the R.E.A. Management
rejected the claim. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue
and on the 11th September, 1992, the Union referred the dispute to
the Labour Court under Section 32(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1946. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 3 of the R.E.A. is clear and unambiguous. It
stipulates "that the appropriate overtime rate for work done
after normal finishing time shall be time and one half". The
workers concerned worked after normal finishing time and were
paid flat rate. Despite numerous requests by the Union,
Management refused to pay the workers concerned the overtime
rate stipulated in Clause 3.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no definition in Clause 3 of the R.E.A. as to
what is "normal finishing time". The parties should have
discussions on this issue. If agreement can be reached an
application can be made to the Labour Court for a variation of
the R.E.A.
2. At the present time the Company, like many other stores,
pays overtime to part-time staff who work in excess of 37 1/2
hours in any week. Normal finishing time varies from store to
store, category of employee and location. The wording of the
R.E.A. does not reflect the current situation in the trade.
ORDER:
5. The R.E.A. for the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footwear, Drapery
and Allied Trades has not been varied significantly (other than
for wages) since 1982. The Court is aware that, in the
intervening period, there have been various developments in
trading and staffing practices that are not provided for or
reflected in the current R.E.A. and that there is need for the
Union and the F.I.E. to negotiate an up-dating.
The Union has sought an interpretation of Clause 3 of the
agreement in respect of a specific occurrence, but the Court is of
the view that this clause can only be considered along with Clause
4 and Clause 8 (b)(i). Clause 4 does not reflect current practice
and clause 8(b)(i) does not define pro-rata application in an
over-time situation.
In the circumstances the Court does not find that a compelling
case has been established by the Union that the Company is in
breach of the R.E.A.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
14th January, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.