Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95274 Case Number: LCR14951 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FULFLEX LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
It is clear that it was always going to be difficult to
co-ordinate the working arrangements to facilitate the employees'
request. Full co-operation of all involved was essential to
making the necessary changes.
Having considered all the information before it, the Court
considers that a genuine effort was made by both sides to reach a
working arrangement.
However, given the need to have the co-operation of all involved,
the nature of the shift arrangements and the time factor, it was
inevitable that an element of confusion would prevail.
Taking into account all aspects of this case, the Court does not
recommend payment of compensation for perceived loss of earnings.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95274 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14951
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FULFLEX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of rubber/plastic
products. Most of the Company's manufacturing process
operates on a 24-hour basis. This requires a combination of
(1) day work, (2) 2-cycle swing shift, (3) permanent night
shift and (4) 3-cycle swing shift. When overtime is required
it is serviced by weekend working as follows:-
DAY EVENING NIGHT
Saturday Swing shift Swing shift ___
No. 1 No. 2
Sunday _____ _______ Night shift
The dispute concerns the overtime worked on the weekend of
2nd/3rd July, 1994. This was the day before the
Ireland/Holland World Cup match on Monday, 4th July, 1994.
The evening shift was due to work the day of the match from 4
p.m. to midnight as usual. Discussion took place between the
parties in an attempt to facilitate workers who wished to see
the match.
The Company claims that on 28th June, 1994, only 4 workers
out of a possible 10 said that they would be available for
night shift on Sunday. It was proposed that the Sunday night
shift would work Saturday night and the Monday evening shift
would work Sunday morning to provide continuity. A notice to
this effect was posted on Friday 1st July, 1994, showing no
Sunday night shift. This followed a meeting on the same day.
The Company claims that management was informed on Saturday,
2nd July, 1994 that the workers scheduled for Saturday night
were not willing to do the shift. A new arrangement provided
for the Monday evening shift to now work from 4 a.m. to 4
p.m. on Sunday. This meant that the Company would lose
production from 10 p.m. Saturday to 4 a.m. Sunday.
The dispute specifically concerns 4 night shift workers who
are claiming payment of Sunday night overtime although the
overtime was not worked. The workers claim that they were
never offered alternative overtime for the weekend in
question.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 23rd November,
1994. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 25th April, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 11th October, 1995 in
Limerick (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the week prior to the match, management requested the
4 workers concerned to work overtime on the Sunday night
before the match. Night shift workers do not normally
work overtime on Saturday. Late on Saturday, the
workers were informed that their Sunday night overtime
was cancelled. The workers did not refuse to work
overtime on Saturday nor did they state that they were
unavailable.
2. Had there been communication between management and the
4 workers, an agreement could have been reached. The
workers should have been given first refusal of the day
work on Sunday.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union had agreed to the roster posted on 1st July,
1994, showing no Sunday night overtime. At no time was
a shift booked for the Sunday night. The workers
concerned had indicated that they were unwilling to work
the Saturday night shift as per the 1st July, 1994
agreement. Hence the revised arrangements on 2nd July,
1994.
2. The Company tried to accommodate the Union for the
weekend in question. Agreement was reached on 1st July,
and again in the alternative arrangement on 2nd July.
The Company cannot pay overtime for work that was never
done.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that it was always going to be difficult to
co-ordinate the working arrangements to facilitate the employees'
request. Full co-operation of all involved was essential to
making the necessary changes.
Having considered all the information before it, the Court
considers that a genuine effort was made by both sides to reach a
working arrangement.
However, given the need to have the co-operation of all involved,
the nature of the shift arrangements and the time factor, it was
inevitable that an element of confusion would prevail.
Taking into account all aspects of this case, the Court does not
recommend payment of compensation for perceived loss of earnings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.