FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BATCHELORS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute refers to the loss of overtime of the worker concerned. The worker has been with the Company for 38 years. His overtime consisted of 2 hours on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays which was paid at double time. There was some disagreement between the parties as to the number of years the worker was doing the overtime - the Union claims it was 14 years while the Company maintains it was from 1989-1996. The worker was a key holder for 14 years.
In 1996, the Company decided to employ an outside firm, De-Jay Security Systems, which now monitors the Company on a 24-hour basis. As a result, the worker's overtime was no longer required. The Union is seeking compensation which amounts to £2,312 per annum for the loss of the overtime, and is also seeking that the worker be put back on security duties. The Company does not see a need to pay any compensation and claims that the worker has considerable overtime earning opportunities.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 7th of May, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of June, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of May, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company decided to end the worker's weekend overtime without discussions. The Union referred the case to a Rights Commissioner which the Company refused to attend.
2. The worker is not highly paid and it is unacceptable that he should lose £44 per week as a result of his overtime being stopped. He was a key holder for 14 years with the Company. Previous Labour Court recommendations for similar cases indicate compensation of 2 years' annual loss. This is in line with the worker's loss to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company upgraded its security system, at considerable cost, due to increased vandalism and break-ins. Since the new system was installed, the incidents of vandalism have greatly reduced.
2. It is the Company's view that no compensation is due as the worker is no longer required to carry out security duties. The worker currently enjoys considerable overtime earning opportunities (up to £82.58 per week). Figures from the worker's P60 for the last 2 years show no real loss of earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which it should recommend payment of compensation.
Taking all of the circumstances into account, the Court recommends compensation of £2,500 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th May, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.