Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9679 Case Number: LCR15146 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH DRIVER HARRIS CO. LTD. (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Inclusion of rostered overtime in holiday pay.
Recommendation:
It would appear that the present shift arrangements have suited
both sides for a number of years.
The Union argument that the overtime is regular and rostered
overtime, and as such should be included in Holiday Pay, is
countered by the Company argument that it does not require this
shift arrangement, and only agreed to it on the understanding that
there would be no increase in costs.
Given that the method of payment is no longer acceptable, and that
the Company does not require the current arrangement it would seem
to the Court that the way forward is for the parties to meet and
agree what shift arrangements are required. Following this the
parties should match the rate against the system being
implemented.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9679 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15146
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH DRIVER HARRIS CO. LTD.
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Inclusion of rostered overtime in holiday pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures electrical cable for the domestic
and export markets. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S.
based Driver Harris International and employs 101 workers at
its location in New Ross.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of approximately 26 workers employed in its extrusion
and standing area for the inclusion of rostered overtime in
the calculation of holiday pay. The workers concerned
operate a 12 hour two shift system (days/nights) Monday to
Friday. The first 8 hours per shift is paid at basic rate
and 4 hours is paid at time plus one-half.
The Company argues that the current shift format was operated
at the request of the workers as a preferred shift system and
that its agreement to the format was contingent on assurances
from the workers that they could work the hours and that
there was consensus among them on the shift cycle.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 30th January, 1996.
As agreement could not be reached the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 16th February, 1996 under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Waterford on 26th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are expected to be present for
their shift and work the rostered overtime. Failure to
do so has led to verbal warnings.
2. The workers have operated the two shift system for 12
years and the additional hours have become an integral
part of their take home pay. The loss of income at
holiday time can affect the workers' financial
commitments.
3. The implementation of the 2 shift system arose following
negotiations between the parties in 1984 but no
documentation setting out the conditions exists. It is
the Union's understanding that the spirit of the Holiday
Act does not preclude concession of this claim which is
based on overtime being part and parcel of normal pay.
In the circumstances the Union's claim is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Holiday (Employees) Act specifically excludes
overtime from the calculation of pay for annual leave.
2. This is a cost increasing claim and is precluded under
the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
3. No employee has requested to transfer from this work
pattern and the Union accepts that there is no pressure
to change.
4. The Company is willing to discuss an alternative work
pattern providing the conditions continue to be met i.e.
health and safety, cost and consensus. It has always
stated that if a majority of employees wish to change,
the system can be discontinued. The Company needs to
operate a 24 hour day and any option fulfilling this
requirement within reasonable parameters can be
considered.
5. The Company employs a 'utility man' to support the
system by being available to cover for absenteeism and
employee requests for time off.
RECOMMENDATION:
It would appear that the present shift arrangements have suited
both sides for a number of years.
The Union argument that the overtime is regular and rostered
overtime, and as such should be included in Holiday Pay, is
countered by the Company argument that it does not require this
shift arrangement, and only agreed to it on the understanding that
there would be no increase in costs.
Given that the method of payment is no longer acceptable, and that
the Company does not require the current arrangement it would seem
to the Court that the way forward is for the parties to meet and
agree what shift arrangements are required. Following this the
parties should match the rate against the system being
implemented.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.