FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROOKS HANLEY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate for Saturday working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a builders providers and operates in three locations in Ireland - Dublin, Cork and Sligo. It is the workers at the Sligo location who are involved in the claim, which concerns the payment for 4 hours overtime worked on Saturdays. At present, overtime is paid at time and one half to approximately 11 workers. There are two rates of pay - £5.89 per hour and £6.92 per hour.
In late 1996, the workers discovered that a competitor company was paying its workers approximately £39 net for four hours Saturday overtime. The competitor company paid the tax and PRSI due. The Union's claim is that the workers concerned should be paid a similar amount.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 3rd of June, 1998. At the conference, the Union changed its claim to payment of double time for the four hours but this was rejected by the Company. The dispute was then referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of November, 1998, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has always been a comparison between the Company and the competitor company. If one group of workers got any sort of bonus, the other group would look for the same.
2. Some of the workers concerned doing Saturday overtime receive as little as £15 because they are on the high rate of tax. Although Saturday overtime was initially on a voluntary basis it is now compulsory to work every second or third Saturday.
3. The Company is profitable. The Union's claim would cost less than if the Company paid double time for the four hours. The cost could be quantified at £140 per week, which the Company could afford.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company applies long-standing rates of payment for overtime. These rates apply to all areas of the Company's activities.
2. Any concession of the Union's claim would have repercussive effects throughout the Brooks Group.
3. These is no direct comparison between the Company and the competitor company in the matter of pay, sick pay, pension etc.
4. The claim is in breach of Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is not satisfied that any established pay relationship exists between the Company and the other company with which comparison is drawn.
For this reason, and having regard to the terms of Partnership 2000, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th November, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.