FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - AND - FOUR WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR2454/00/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union’s claim is for the payment of overtime to four workers who are employed by the Council to collect refuse. The workers concerned were requested to work overtime from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday 18th March, 2000 and would have been paid for 11 flat hours. However, they refused to work the overtime, although they were informed that they would have to collect a double lift on Friday 24th March, 2000.
On the 24th of March at approximately 2 p.m. they requested additional assistance and payment of overtime, as one worker had excused himself from work without notice and the remaining workers had already worked through their lunch break. The Acting Town Overseer provided two additional lifters, but the Council states that he did not sanction overtime. The workers were due to finish work at 4 p.m., but did not finish until 5 p.m. They submitted claims for two hours overtime at time and a half from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. The Council refused to pay the overtime claimed.
The issue was the subject of a Rights Commissioner’s investigation on the 23rd of February, 2001. The Rights Commissioner found that a task and finish arrangement was in place at the time and while the workers could seek overtime they could not have expected that it would be paid. She issued her Recommendation on the 15th of March, 2001, as follows:
“Recommendation
Based on the evidence presented and for the reasons set out in the conclusion above, I do not recommend concession of the claim.”
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 11th of April, 2001, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 12th of October, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are appealing the Recommendation because they worked through their lunch break and up to 5 p.m. on the 24th of March, 2000.
2. The claimants believe that they had an agreement with the Acting Town Overseer that overtime would be paid.
3. On previous occasions the Council paid overtime within the work to finish situation when it suited. Therefore, this request is not unique and would not create a precedent.
4. The additional lifters who were provided by the Council were paid overtime.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants were aware that their refusal to work overtime on the 18th of March would result in a double lift on the 24th of March, 2000.
2. Two additional lifters were provided to replace the one who had left work.
3. The Acting Town Overseer informed the claimants that it was a matter for the Town Engineer or the Town Clerk to sanction overtime.
4. It is normal practice to work through lunch under the Task and Finish System.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court concurs with the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th October, 2001______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.