Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94242 Case Number: LCR14947 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning two issues:- 1. Compensation for loss of earnings during unofficial stoppage; 2. Overtime for work outside normal working hours (part-time workers).
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from both parties, the Court
recommends as follows, on both items in dispute:-
(a) Compensation for loss of earnings:-
The Court is of the view that both parties broke normal
procedures which resulted in the claim from the Union.
However, the Company/Union agreement of 1976 is clear on the
subject of payment for periods of unofficial strike. The
Court, accordingly, does not find in favour of the Union's
claim.
(b) Overtime for work outside normal working hours (part-time
workers):-
The Court finds the Overtime rates should only be paid to
part-time workers in this instance when they work in excess
of 7.8 hours per day or 39 hours per week.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94242 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14947
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Dispute concerning two issues:-
1. Compensation for loss of earnings during unofficial
stoppage;
2. Overtime for work outside normal working hours (part-time
workers).
BACKGROUND:
The Company is located in Mullagh, Kells, Co. Meath, and has
been in existence for 23 years, employing approximately 450
in the production of nylon and polyester fibre for the
international market-place. The above issues were the
subject of a Labour Court hearing, under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990, in Cavan, on the 28th of
September, 1995.
CLAIM 1: Compensation for loss of earnings:
On the 20th of May, 1993, the Labour Court issued LCR14088,
which was the culmination of lengthy and intensive industrial
relations interaction between the parties, embracing the
machinery of the Labour Court, the Labour Relations
Commission and Rights Commissioner service. In LCR14088, the
Court recommended that changes to the 'finishing lines'
sought by the Company during 1992, should be implemented
without further delay and that the matter of the sick-pay
scheme being discussed should not delay the implementation of
those changes.
The Company accepted LCR14088 and sought the implementation
of the finishing line changes on the 24th May, 1993.
However, the Union insisted on balloting its members on
LCR14088, a process which would take up to one week. In the
meantime, on the afternoon of the 24th, the workers refused
to implement the changes and when they were informed that
they would not be paid, received the support of their
colleagues who also refused to work. It is the payment of
that week's pay which is being sought by the Union. The
Company rejected the claim. [Agreement was subsequently
reached on the issue of the finishing line changes].
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The stoppage of work was engineered by the Company in order
to bring a long-running dispute to a head. It set back
industrial relations in the Company to a level which had not
been seen for many years.
2. The Company knew, when it confronted the Union members on
24th May, 1993, that no formal decision had been taken by the
Union. It precipitated the spread of the dispute by removing
workers involved with the finishing line from the payroll.
3. The workers concerned lost an average of #250 each and should
be compensated in full. The Company's contribution to this
dispute is unprecedented and it must be required to
compensate for the loss suffered by the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The essence of the matter is whether or not workers should be
paid for engaging in unofficial action. This should not be
allowed to happen.
2. The action was contrary to the terms of the 1990 Industrial
Relations Act in at least one respect, in that no ballot was
carried out in accordance with Section 14(2) of the 1990 Act.
In this regard, it was actually within the Company's remit to
take formal legal action for damages.
3. For the duration of the dispute, the Company has shown the
utmost constraint. A total of twenty-six meetings took place
which included:
(a) 2 Labour Court hearings
(b) 6 conciliation conferences and
(c) 1 Rights Commissioner's hearing
subsequent to which the Union was still intent on taking
industrial action. (Details supplied to the Court).
4. On 24th June, 1976, the Company entered into an agreement
with SIPTU in respect of unofficial action. This agreement
states unequivocally, that
"...no requests for payment of wages for the duration of the
stoppage, will be made or expected by the employees...".
CLAIM 2: Overtime for work outside normal working hours
(part-time workers):
The issue concerns workers who work different hours due to
the nature of their work and whose weekly hours vary
significantly due to working on rotation. The Union has
claimed payment at O/T premium for any hours worked over and
above the normal roster. The Company has rejected any claim
for O/T payment for hours worked under 39 hours per week.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company is treating the part-time workers as full-time
staff, by expecting them to complete a full day, the
equivalent of that worked by staff on 39 hours per week,
before qualifying for overtime.
2. The established practice in industry is to pay overtime after
completion of the worker's normal daily hours. To the
part-timer that should mean after the completion of his/her
normal day.
3. The part-time workers have no entitlement to a 39-hour week
or 7.8 hour day. Therefore, it is unreasonable that they
should have to match those basic hours as a prelude to
qualifying for overtime.
4. There is no question of the Company being unable to meet the
cost of the overtime or any consequential claims from other
staff. It is a matter of treating part-timers no less
favourably than full-time staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company would be discriminating between part-time
employees themselves, e.g., one part-time employee could work
4 hours, another 14 hours. The part-time employee working an
additional hour after 4 hours, would be paid a higher hourly
rate than the part-time employee working 14 hours. In
addition, full-time employees who must either work 7.8 hours
in any day or 39 hours in any week would be discriminated
against.
2. This issue has previously been before a Rights Commissioner
on 10th June, 1991, who found
"the Company did not break any agreement on normal practice
in its calculation of overtime payments due".
3. The Labour Court, in Recommendation Order Number REA2392, has
touched on this matter and has gone on to find, in similar
circumstances, that there was no breach of the Registered
Employment Agreement (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from both parties, the Court
recommends as follows, on both items in dispute:-
(a) Compensation for loss of earnings:-
The Court is of the view that both parties broke normal
procedures which resulted in the claim from the Union.
However, the Company/Union agreement of 1976 is clear on the
subject of payment for periods of unofficial strike. The
Court, accordingly, does not find in favour of the Union's
claim.
(b) Overtime for work outside normal working hours (part-time
workers):-
The Court finds the Overtime rates should only be paid to
part-time workers in this instance when they work in excess
of 7.8 hours per day or 39 hours per week.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23th October, 1995 EVELYN OWENS
M.K./A.K. ____________________________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.