FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED. - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR4372/01/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a line patrol operator on the wafer plant in A Block. Her basic hours of work were 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. Prior to 1995, the line patrol operator's duties before 8.00 a.m. were done by a weekend or a night shift. When the weekend shift ceased in 1995, the worker was given one half hours overtime (from 7.30 a.m.) on Mondays. The wafer plant ceased night shift production in 1996, and it was necessary to have someone do a similar amount of overtime from Tuesday to Friday. The Company believed that a night shift employee from another shift should cover the overtime,but agreed to allow the worker concerned to do so in the interim, giving her 2.5 hours' overtime per week. The overtime was paid at double time and was worth approximately £40 (50.79 Euro) per week.
The worker continued with this arrangement until week 37, 1999. Following an accident, she was absent from work until week 22, 2000, when she returned and secured a fixed duration 2-shift job after a short period of time. The Union claims that when the worker returned, the Company sought to discontinue her overtime. The Union made a claim for compensation of 2.75 times the annual loss. The Company offered 22 weeks at 2.5 hours' overtime per week. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and her recommendation is as follows:-
"Based on the submissions made at the hearing and taking into account the conclusion set out above I recommend that the Union's claim in respect of the worker be conceded. In the event that the line is reopened then the question of who will perform the work previously performed by the worker should be a matter of discussion between the Union and the Company and there should be no presumption on the part of the worker that she will automatically regain that work as overtime in light of this recommendation."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 31st of July, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim of 2.75 times the annual loss is the formula that has been applied to Cadbury craft workers as part of the Company plan of Vision 2000 concluded in 1998.
2. In May, 1995, The Company reached agreement with lorry drivers on compensation for loss of overtime of up to £20,000 (25394.76 Euro). A number of other groups in the Company have received similar compensation (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Overtime is not guaranteed. It is used only where necessary to meet production requirements, and this is clearly provided for in the Company/Union agreement.
2. The offer of 22 weeks at 2.5 hours' overtime per week was the same as that recommended by the Labour Court in LCR16124 which dealt with workers in a similar position to the worker concerned. The claim of 2.75 times the annual loss dealt with a once-off settlement for a complete elimination of overtime for the craft group.
3. The worker has secured a fixed duration job on 2-shift which has increased her earnings above the level she enjoyed whilst working overtime. The worker herself applied for shift work 11 weeks after returning from sick leave so her loss, in fact , was only 11 weeks. . The Company did not transfer her as the Rights Commissioner seems to have believed.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, believes that the offer made by the Company to settle this dispute is reasonable and should be accepted by the claimant. The Court, therefore, upholds the Company appeal and rejects the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th November, 2001______________________
CON/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.