Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95191 Case Number: AD9553 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW388/94 concerning a claim for compensation for the loss of regular rostered overtime for 2 workers.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, together with the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Given all of the circumstances of the case, the Court does not
find grounds have been adduced to warrant payment of compensation
for the loss of overtime.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Company's appeal and decides
that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be rejected.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95191 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5395
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. CW388/94 concerning a claim for
compensation for the loss of regular rostered overtime for 2
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim is on behalf of 2 workers employed in the
Ground Operations Equipment Section since 1989 and 1990
respectively. The workers were employed from 08.00 to
16.00 Monday to Friday. In addition they worked 2 hours
overtime each day and every second Saturday and Sunday
from 06.00 to 08.00.
2. The Company's 1994 "strategy for the future" led to an
agreement on the introduction of new starting times
which eliminated the need for the rostered overtime.
The Union submitted a claim for compensation for loss of
earnings at twice the annual loss.
3. The claim was referred to the Rights Commissioner's
Service for investigation and recommendation. The
Recommendation as follows was issued on 14th March,
1995:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the 2
workers accept #1,600 and #2,000 respectively in
settlement of this dispute".
The workers were named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
4. The Company appealed the Recommendation on 20th March,
1995 under the terms of Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal
on 18th May, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A critical element of the Company's strategy for the
future was the elimination of all non-essential
overtime. It was always recognised by the Union that
staff in overtime areas would incur a loss as a result
of the changes. Given the Company's financial
situation, there was no question of compensation being
paid. There is huge potential for repercussive claims
should any compensation be paid for this claim, (details
supplied).
2. The workers can still avail of overtime opportunities
within the Company. The 2 workers have failed to avail
of operational overtime from the general pool. Neither
worker has suffered a reduction in total gross earnings
between 1992 and 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers' jobs were conditional on them working
rostered overtime. The compulsory overtime was a part
of the employment contract. If the workers refused to
work the rostered overtime, they would be breaking their
contract of employment and could lose their positions.
2. The Company has failed to honour the contract of
employment under which the workers were recruited. As a
result the workers have suffered a significant loss of
earnings. The Rights Commissioner has recognised that
the claims have merit. At this stage, the Company has
returned to profitability and the workers should be
awarded twice their annual loss of earnings.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, together with the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Given all of the circumstances of the case, the Court does not
find grounds have been adduced to warrant payment of compensation
for the loss of overtime.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Company's appeal and decides
that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be rejected.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman