Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94322 Case Number: AD9515 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KILKENNY TEXTILE MILLS - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 97/94.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
and in particular taking into account the length of the time since
the overtime was worked, is of the view that the Rights
Commissioners recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94322 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KILKENNY TEXTILE MILLS
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
B.C. 97/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for compensation for loss of
Saturday overtime.
3. The Union claims that in 1984/85 the worker was approached by 2
trainee supervisors and was asked to do cleaning work on Saturdays
for 4 hours. It also claims that the worker was guaranteed the
overtime every Saturday if he accepted.
4. In time, the practice of working every Saturday changed to 2
out of 3 Saturdays, then 1 in 3 and eventually stopped altogether.
5. In 1990, the worker entered a claim for compensation for the
reduction in overtime which took effect in 1985. The Union is
claiming compensation of 6 months net loss. The dispute was
eventually referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing took
place on 25th March, 1994. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation follows:-
"In the light of the above it is my conviction that this claim
for compensation cannot be sustained. I therefore recommend
that the claim must fail".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the the Labour Court on
8th June, 1994, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th February,
1995, in Kilkenny (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given a commitment by the Company that he
would retain the Saturday overtime if he undertook the
work.
2. The worker continued to do Saturday overtime for a
considerable time after agreeing to do the work.
Another worker who was to have done 4 hours overtime
declined to do so and the worker concerned had to do 8
hours each Saturday.
3. The worker did not press his claim for compensation
until 1990 as there were a number of other industrial
disputes in the Company which had to be dealt with
first.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker only did Saturday overtime on his own for
approximately 4 months in 1985. The overtime was
distributed among other workers more evenly at the
request of those workers. There is an understanding
between the Company and Union regarding the distribution
of overtime.
2. There is no guaranteed overtime in the Company. The
worker's claim dates back so far it is difficult to
establish events with certainty. The worker did not
make his claim for 5 years after doing the overtime.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
and in particular taking into account the length of the time since
the overtime was worked, is of the view that the Rights
Commissioners recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th February, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C O'N/U.S. ------------
Chairman