FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ORIFLAME MANUFACTURING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of cosmetics for both the domestic and international markets. It employs approximately 300 workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for loss of earnings arising from the introduction of shift working in February, 1996. The Union argues that the workers concerned worked substantial amounts of overtime on an ongoing basis prior to the introduction of shift and should be compensated for their loss.
The Company's position is that an agreement reached under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission (details supplied) constituted a package of measures in full and final settlement of all claims arising the Company's desire to move to shift work.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the matter and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 18th of September, 1997. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of October, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of January, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Overtime working was an integral part of the working arrangements in the Company. Its operation was dependent upon it and all employees were expected to co-operate by making themselves available on an ongoing basis. Pressure was exerted on the workforce by management to secure this co-operation.
2. The workers' efforts were acknowledged by the Company in its letter to all staff in December, 1995 rewarding them with vouchers. It stated in this communication that it was recognising the extraordinary efforts of those employees who committed themselves to extra hours on a continuous basis.
3. It was the workers' understanding that a claim for the loss of overtime earnings would be considered 12 months after the introduction of shift.
4. The workers' efforts have made a significant contribution to the success of the Company. As a result of the high level of overtime earnings the workers became dependant upon it. In the circumstances the Union's claim for compensation of 104 times the actual loss is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of shift was brought about by the need to meet growing customer demand. Its introduction has increased the Company's costs and significantly increased its employment levels.
2. In 1995/1996 overtime levels reached unacceptably high levels and could no longer be sustained without jeopardising the business. Even with excessive overtime working and the employment of sub-contractors, a backlog of shipments totalling one million units existed.
3. Leaving aside 1995/1996, which was an exceptional year, the introduction of shift working has not reduced the earning potential of the vast majority of employees. The shift rate of £12,147 per annum exceeds, in almost all cases, the earnings enjoyed by the majority of employees during the years where overtime was worked.
4. All employees benefited from the surge in demand for Company product and now continue to benefit as a result of the 1996 agreement which allowed the Company the opportunity to meet that demand.
5. The agreement of February, 1996 expressed itself to be in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the Company's desire to move to shift work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all the information supplied, finds that the Labour Relations Commission proposal, subsequently agreed, clearly stated that the settlement proposed dated 16 Feb. 1996 was "in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the Company's desire to move to shift work".
The Court therefore finds no basis for conceding the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd January, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.