Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93269 Case Number: AD9359 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 332/92 concerning a worker's loss of guaranteed overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93269 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W.
332/92 concerning a worker's loss of guaranteed overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Under the terms of L.C.R. 12505, the worker who was the
subject of the Rights Commissioner's investigation is
guaranteed 7 hours overtime per week. A Production
Development Plan (PDP) was implemented in the Company in
September, 1992. Under the terms of the Plan a number of
workers were transferred out of the maintenance department.
This resulted in the transfer of the worker to the maintenance
department as a helper.
2. In the worker's previous position he received his
guaranteed 7 hours overtime every week. In the maintenance
department overtime is rostered among helpers and the worker
takes his turn. Difficulties arose as the Company was not in
a position to guarantee that the worker would have a set 7
hours overtime every week, due to the nature and availability
of overtime in the maintenance department. The Company
offered to reconcile the worker's overtime every 4 weeks so
that the worker's transfer would not affect his over-all
overtime working. The Union rejected the Company's proposal.
3. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners'
Service for investigation and recommendation. A Rights
Commissioner's investigation took place on 7th March, 1993 and
a Recommendation as follows issued on 23rd March, 1993:
"*RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Union and the worker accept the 4
weeks reconciliation period and the Company pays a once
off lump sum equivalent to 14 hours normal overtime to
the worker on his acceptance of the revision and in
settlement of this dispute ".
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by
the Union to the Labour Court by letter dated 6th April, 1992.
The Labour Court heard the appeal on 1st July, 1993 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has a long standing agreement concerning the
payment of guaranteed overtime on a weekly basis. The worker
has tailored his weekly financial commitments accordingly.
The worker is weekly paid and any changes in his payments will
cause him difficulties with his financial responsibilities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's new position provides as much overtime
opportunities as his previous position. In his new position
however, it is not possible to provide the worker with a set 7
hours per week. The worker has maintained his position in his
new department and he should accept the working conditions
which apply there. The Company must have the right to
organise work in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
22nd July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.