Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95489 Case Number: LCR14965 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court, given all the circumstances outlined by the parties in
their oral and written submissions does not recommend concession
of the claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95489 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14965
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was engaged on cleaning
duties from 1991 until March, 1995. He worked overtime two
nights per week, averaging two hours per shift. In March,
1995, the Company eliminated the overtime. The Union claimed
compensation in the amount of three times the worker's annual
loss. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 14th August, 1995.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 22nd August, 1995. A Court hearing
was held on the 27th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee concerned worked overtime on a regular
rostered basis since 1991. Management terminated this
overtime arbitrarily and without consultation or
agreement. The Company displayed little regard for the
impact of the loss of overtime on the worker's earnings.
2. The overtime deleted was not production related and
therefore not directly subject to market forces. Its
elimination came about as a result of restructuring
decisions by Management.
3. The Company's alternative proposal whereby the worker
should enter into an existing overtime rota with the
warehouse staff is not acceptable because those workers
on that rota would suffer a reduction of regular
overtime. This alternative raises difficulties with
other workers and may subsequently lead to other
compensation claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1967 it has been Company policy not to compensate
workers for loss of overtime. At that time the Company
implemented significant changes in work practices. Any
overtime prior to 1987 which had been regularly worked
was discontinued and compensation paid. The worker
concerned along with others accepted £750 each in
settlement. It was clearly stated by management that
any overtime for the future would be on a need only
basis. It would not attract compensation and would be
shared among workers as fairly as possible.
2. The Company must control costs particularly those based
on obsolete practices which cannot be reintroduced.
Management has offered the worker alternative overtime
on a production cleaning line if he wishes to
participate in a rota shared by twelve other workers.
He has refused this offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, given all the circumstances outlined by the parties in
their oral and written submissions does not recommend concession
of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th November, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.