Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95707 Case Number: LCR15067 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: VAN DEN BERGH FOODS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation payments for additional hours worked.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the
parties.
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court recommends
that the Company offer of £950 to each transferred employee should
be increased to £1,600 gross.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95707 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15067
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
VAN DEN BERGH FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation payments for additional
hours worked.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1992 W & C McDonnell (Drogheda) merged with HB Ice Cream
to form Van Den Bergh Foods Limited. In January, 1993 13
clerical employees and 4 assistant managers transferred to
the headquarters of the new Company in Rathfarnham. Those
workers transferrring from Drogheda did so on the
understanding that no loss of pay would result. At the time
of transfer the Drogheda hours of work were 36 per week and
the Rathfarnham hours were 37.5 per week. The Union submitted
a claim on behalf of 6 workers for compensation in respect of
extra hours worked. At local level discussions the Company
made an offer of £950 to each worker. The Union rejected the
offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 13th
March and 28th September, 1995. No agreement was possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 13th December, 1995. A
Court hearing was held on the 17th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the time of transfer workers were assured by
management that the hours of work at Rathfarnham would
not pose a problem and that the Company would compensate
for additional hours worked. At various discussions
between the parties the Union claimed the actual amount
of overtime due - approximately £2,460 per worker.
2. It is accepted that the Company would have difficulty in
making overtime payments on a weekly basis to the
workers concerned prior to implementation of the
requisite changes in hours at Rathfarnham. The Union
cannot allow the Company to breach its contract (to pay
overtime) or flout the understandings and arrangements
made to promote the smooth assimilation of workers on
transfer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of transfer the hours of work in Drogheda
were 36 per week with a ten minute tea-break giving a
net working week of 35 hours 10 minutes. The hours at
Rathfarnham were 37.5 with two 15 minute tea-breaks
giving a net working week of 35 therefore Rathfarnham
employees worked ten minutes less per week. In 1994 (in
negotiations with another Union representing Rathfarnham
workers) the Rathfarnham hours were changed to 36.25 per
week with the abolition of the afternoon tea-break
giving a net working week of 35 hours. As such there
was no change in the net working week but the
Rathfarnham employees received a payment of £1,000 for
the alteration.
2. The Union's claim is not valid in-so-far as the net
working hours in Rathfarnham were less than in Drogheda.
However, the Company made a very reasonable offer of
£950 to each worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the
parties.
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court recommends
that the Company offer of £950 to each transferred employee should
be increased to £1,600 gross.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th January, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.