Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93344 Case Number: AD9360 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTORS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST36/93 concerning the level of payment to a worker in a buy-out of overtime.
Recommendation:
(ii) Their loss of earnings in Dispatch/Production on an
individual basis multiplied by two years.
The formula used in the worker's case was based on average
earnings for those employees who worked in Dispatch for a
full year less what the worker actually earned in the same
year. In the worker's case the buy-out amounted to #1000.
The worker disputed this amount and its calculation and
agreement could not be reached. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner who heard the case on the 22nd April,
1993. In his recommendation No. ST36/93 issued on the 12th
May, 1993 the Rights Commissioner found that the worker:
"made the request to switch to the Distribution Section
for his own well-founded reasons. Because of this he
lost the opportunity to work overtime in the area he
left."
The Rights Commissioner recommended:
"rejection of the claim as presented".
4. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 1st June, 1993 and
the Court heard the appeal on the 14th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The formula suggested by the Company does not take
account of the fact that the worker worked in both the
distribution and dispatch areas.
2. the formula suggested by the union is more appropriate.
3. the issue and the claim is for the amount due in loss of
earnings due to a buy-out of the helpers pool for the
distribution area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker worked within distribution for longer periods
each successive year following the reorganisation and denied
himself the opportunity to earn potential overtime earnings.
he also refused overtime on occasions when it was available
to him.
2. The 1989 buy-out was of overtime in Dispatch and was
based strictly on overtime worked in the Dispatch area.
3. The 1992 buy-out of loss of earnings resulted from the
disbanding of the helper pool and was based on overall
earnings of employees who worked in Dispatch only vis-a-vis
overall earnings of those employees who worked in
Distribution and Dispatch.
4. The Company will undertake to reduce the average gross
earnings of the Dispatch staff used in the formula for
calculating loss of earnings by the amount earned for
scheduled Saturday overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the verbal
clarifications presented at the hearing, the Court is satisfied
that the method used by the Company to calculate the claimant's
entitlement is correct. The Court notes the Company's undertaking
to reduce the calculation of the average gross earnings of the
Dispatch staff by the amount earned for scheduled Saturday
overtime. This will benefit the claimant. The Court considers
that the Union should accept the resultant calculation as the
correct entitlement.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93344 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTORS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
ST36/93 concerning the level of payment to a worker in a buy-out
of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Coca-Cola Distributors (Ireland) Limited is a separate
legal entity from Coca-Cola Bottling, employs 200 people and
operates its Dublin distribution network from Long Mile Road.
During 1989, negotiations took place between the company and
the union on reorganisation plans for the company. In the
Dispatch Department, where the worker worked, a number of
changes were jointly agreed which included:
a) a buy-out of the shift premium for those who would
opt for working the day shift, and
b) a buy-out of part of the overtime which had been
worked heretofore.
It was agreed that the worker would retain the right to earn
up to 30% of the level of potential overtime that he had
worked heretofore.
2. Following this agreement the worker requested and was
granted work within the Distribution Department. During this
period the time spent in distribution increased each year and
reduced his opportunity to work overtime in the Dispatch
Department.
3. In 1992 it was agreed that the lorry helper pool, of
which the worker was a part, would be disbanded and a buy-out
was agreed on the following basis:
(i) A #500 minimum payment for each person in the pool,
or
(ii) Their loss of earnings in Dispatch/Production on an
individual basis multiplied by two years.
The formula used in the worker's case was based on average
earnings for those employees who worked in Dispatch for a
full year less what the worker actually earned in the same
year. In the worker's case the buy-out amounted to #1000.
The worker disputed this amount and its calculation and
agreement could not be reached. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner who heard the case on the 22nd April,
1993. In his recommendation No. ST36/93 issued on the 12th
May, 1993 the Rights Commissioner found that the worker:
"made the request to switch to the Distribution Section
for his own well-founded reasons. Because of this he
lost the opportunity to work overtime in the area he
left."
The Rights Commissioner recommended:
"rejection of the claim as presented".
4. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 1st June, 1993 and
the Court heard the appeal on the 14th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The formula suggested by the Company does not take
account of the fact that the worker worked in both the
distribution and dispatch areas.
2. the formula suggested by the union is more appropriate.
3. the issue and the claim is for the amount due in loss of
earnings due to a buy-out of the helpers pool for the
distribution area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker worked within distribution for longer periods
each successive year following the reorganisation and denied
himself the opportunity to earn potential overtime earnings.
he also refused overtime on occasions when it was available
to him.
2. The 1989 buy-out was of overtime in Dispatch and was
based strictly on overtime worked in the Dispatch area.
3. The 1992 buy-out of loss of earnings resulted from the
disbanding of the helper pool and was based on overall
earnings of employees who worked in Dispatch only vis-a-vis
overall earnings of those employees who worked in
Distribution and Dispatch.
4. The Company will undertake to reduce the average gross
earnings of the Dispatch staff used in the formula for
calculating loss of earnings by the amount earned for
scheduled Saturday overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the verbal
clarifications presented at the hearing, the Court is satisfied
that the method used by the Company to calculate the claimant's
entitlement is correct. The Court notes the Company's undertaking
to reduce the calculation of the average gross earnings of the
Dispatch staff by the amount earned for scheduled Saturday
overtime. This will benefit the claimant. The Court considers
that the Union should accept the resultant calculation as the
correct entitlement.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th July, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.