Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95190 Case Number: AD9552 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW365/94 concerning the loss of rostered overtime for a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions has a certain sympathy with the
circumstances of the worker concerned. The Court takes the view
that the circumstances which gave rise to the problem might well
have been overcome in a manner other than by the necessity for
overtime.
However, notwithstanding the above, the Court, taking account of
the financial circumstances of the Company and the extensive
agreements which have recently had to be put in place and accepted
by the staff with a view to securing the optimum levels of
employment and the future of the Company, does not find in favour
of the payment of compensation for the loss of overtime earnings
and accordingly, upholds the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95190 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5295
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW365/94 concerning the loss of rostered
overtime for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker is employed in a clerical capacity in the
cargo section at Cork airport. For 19 years, he worked
rostered overtime. In May, 1993, the Company recruited
a grade III clerical worker which in conjunction with
its "strategy for the future" programme and the
completion of the EU internal market led to the
elimination of the rostered overtime.
2. The Union submitted a claim for compensation for loss of
earnings based on twice the average annual loss. The
claim was referred to the Rights Commissioner service
for investigation and recommendation. The claim was
investigated by a Rights Commissioner on 1st February,
1995 and the Recommendation as follows issued on 14th
March, 1995:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts #3,000 in settlement of this dispute".
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
3. On 20th March, 1995, the Company appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court under
the terms of Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 18th May,
1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The overtime in the cargo department in Cork was brought
about by lack of agreement on providing cover over the
"business" day. As a result the worker worked a
considerable amount of overtime, much of which was known
to be dead time. The working of overtime was never
compulsory.
2. The decline in overtime available was due to a number of
factors, one of which was the completion of the EU
internal market on 1st January, 1993. This also led to
the abolition of 60% of customs clearance work. The
customs officers who were redeployed were not
compensated for loss of earnings, (details supplied).
3. Concession of this claim could lead to massive
repercussive claims throughout the Company. The history
of staffing levels and planned overtime is a complex
issue which must be considered in the light of the
overall uncertainty over the Airport (details supplied).
The "strategy for the future" is relevant to this case.
The worker's claim cannot be dealt with in isolation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Excessive overtime was worked in the cargo section due
to inadequate staffing levels. A claim for an increase
in staffing levels was first made in 1975 and on several
occasions since then. It was Company policy to resolve
the problem by rostered overtime. In 1991, the senior
station manager agreed that if the overtime earnings
were to be terminated, compensation would have to be
considered.
2. For 19 years the worker availed of the overtime to such
an extent that it became a way of life for him. After
such a long time, it was reasonable of the worker to
expect its continuance.
3. There is only one worker concerned with the claim.
Compensation for loss of rostered overtime is a well
established practice in the Company. The Company has
returned to profitability and is in a position to afford
the Union's claim of twice the average annual loss of
earnings.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions has a certain sympathy with the
circumstances of the worker concerned. The Court takes the view
that the circumstances which gave rise to the problem might well
have been overcome in a manner other than by the necessity for
overtime.
However, notwithstanding the above, the Court, taking account of
the financial circumstances of the Company and the extensive
agreements which have recently had to be put in place and accepted
by the staff with a view to securing the optimum levels of
employment and the future of the Company, does not find in favour
of the payment of compensation for the loss of overtime earnings
and accordingly, upholds the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman