LCR15414

SUBJECT:
1. Non-payment of rostered overtime on foot of store closure due to bombscare.





BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim regarding the non-payment of rostered overtime to 5 storemen following the closure of the Company's store (O'Connell Street) on 18th July, 1996 due to a bombscare.

The workers concerned are rostered on overtime every Thursday until 8 p.m. and the payment is included in the calculation of holiday pay.

The Company argues that it honoured basic pay commitments by paying the workers until 5.30 p.m. despite the closure of the store shortly after 12 Noon on the day in question.

Local level discussions took place but progress was not made and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 30th September, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 31st October, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th December, 1996.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The overtime hours claimed by the workers concerned are rostered and are an integral part of their weekly earnings. Unlike other staff the loss of this overtime represented a cut in their normal weekly pay of approximately £30 gross.

2. The difference between the store personnel and other members of the staff has been recognised by the Company who paid the workers up to 5.30 p.m. i.e., one hour after normal finishing time. This was paid at double time in the normal way.

3. The additional 2.5 - 3 hours at double time should be paid to the workers as this represented part of their normal weekly pay and all other staff have been paid their normal pay for this day.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company incurred substantial losses on the day. The store traded at 16% of its normal level. The situation was outside the Company's control and its decision to honour basic pay commitments was reasonable in the circumstances.

2. It is the practice in Penneys and in the trade generally to honour basic pay commitments in such circumstances.

3. Management made considerable efforts to minimise the inconvenience caused to staff.

4. Concession of this claim could lead to knock-on claims from 44 other members of the staff who were rostered to work until 8 p.m.





RECOMMENDATION:

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties cannot find grounds for recommending concession of the Union's claims.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
20th December, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.