Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94359 Case Number: AD9471 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DAIRYGOLD CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED - and - MANDATE |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST11/94 concerning claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that certain products had been transferred from the Drapery
Department to other departments in the Shop which at least was
partly responsible for some drop in turnover, the Court is of the
view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is not
unreasonable in the circumstances and therefore should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94359 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DAIRYGOLD CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED
and
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST11/94
concerning claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The six workers concerned in the dispute are employed in
the drapery department of the Company's store in
Mitchelstown. In the Spring of 1992 the Company
announced that it was ceasing late-night Friday
shopping. At that time the employees worked five days
over six plus the late-night on Friday to 9.00 p.m. for
which they were paid overtime. Two of the six also
worked a half hour's overtime on four evenings per week.
2. The Union claims that the overtime was regular and
rostered and submitted a claim on behalf of the workers
for compensation for the loss of the overtime earnings.
The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 30th May, 1994, the Rights
Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union's claims succeed in
principle and that twice the agreed annual loss is
paid. The payment should be in two moieties. Fifty
per cent should be paid immediately and the remainder
on the 31st July, 1995 should the late night working
not be resumed by then in each case. If late night
working does resume before this date then the amount
paid will be discounted at a future date should a
similar successful claim be lodged by the Union.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by
the Company to the Labour Court on 4th July, 1994, in
accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute
in Cork on 5th October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has in the past paid twice the annual loss
in compensation for the loss of overtime. The overtime
in this case was regular and rostered and has been
worked for over five years.
2. The Society is at present in the process of
rationalising the various departments in Mitchelstown.
As a result of this the Union does not accept that
late-night overtime will re-commence in 1995.
3. The transfer of certain products to other departments
has contributed to the downward trend of sales in the
drapery department. In the circumstances the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is justified.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company has paid compensation for loss of overtime
only in circumstances were losses were incurred as a
result of management's rationalisation programme.
2. There is no precedent within the industry to pay
compensation for loss of earnings in circumstances where
market forces have been responsible for the changes. It
was necessary from a cost control point of view to cease
late-night Friday trading.
3. The downward trend in sales in the drapery department
were outside the control of the Society, in spite of its
best efforts to reverse the decline. In the
circumstances there is no justification in compensating
employees for the loss of income.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that certain products had been transferred from the Drapery
Department to other departments in the Shop which at least was
partly responsible for some drop in turnover, the Court is of the
view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is not
unreasonable in the circumstances and therefore should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./U.S. ------------
Chairman