FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHAMROCK ALUMINIUM LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for loss of holiday pay because rostered overtime was not included in the calculation of holiday pay over the last 10 years.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces aluminium at its plant in Grannagh, Waterford. It employs twenty-seven people of which eight work shiftwork.
The Union claims that since 1990, four employees worked overtime at weekends on a rostered basis throughout the year. It states that this overtime was mandatory and staff were only excused from performing it with the permission from the production manager. The Company refused to include an average amount of overtime earned by these employees when holiday pay was being calculated.
The Company's position is that overtime is not regular or rostered. A panel of four/five men cover the weekends and the schedule is left to the workers themselves to arrange.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 9th May, 2000 and the 13th September, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th September, 2000 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 16th January, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A certain amount of overtime should be factored into calculating holiday pay for these employees. They have been on this overtime for the past ten years.
2. This overtime was mandatory. Staff had to be given permission from the production manager not to work the overtime.
3. The workers were threatened with disciplinary action if the weekend overtime was not covered.
4. The Union advised its members that they were not obliged to cover this overtime. The members subsequently withdrew their services.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Overtime has never been included in the calculation of holiday pay. This is in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
2. The Company's position is that the overtime is not regular or rostered.
3. Management were forced to employ part-time staff to cover weekend working when the workers in dispute withdrew their services.
4. The Company is prepared to include any future regular/rostered overtime in holiday pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties. It is noted that the loss of the overtime is not an issue between the parties and that those currently providing weekend cover have the overtime rates reflected in their pay and included in their holiday pay.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers that the amounts claimed by the union are reasonable and should be conceded. It is noted, however, that the union's claim is expressed in net terms. The question of statutory deductions from the amount conceded is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and the Court cannot recommend net payments. The amount claimed should, therefore, be regarded as gross.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd January, 2001______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.