FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABS PUMPS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for a loss of overtime as a result of the Company's decision in October, 2000, to reduce overtime from 20% of the payroll cost to a "cap" of 10%. The Company maintains that overtime was only above 10% in 4 of the last 10 years. The Union is seeking twice the annual loss. This is based on calculating the regular overtime an individual worked over recent years, comparing it with the year in which the individual's overtime was cut and multiplying it by two. At the Labour Court hearing, there was disagreement as to how much overtime was actually worked.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a total of 11 conciliation conferences took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of July, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of March, 2002, in Wexford, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It would be normal for employees to work up to 44 Saturdays per year and 2/3 evenings every week. As a result of the decision to cut overtime some workers have lost up to €150 per week.
2. The decision to cut the overtime was one of policy. It had nothing to do with the level of business.
3. In order to maintain production levels, the Company recruited more than 30 temporary employees, thus resulting in a considerable saving for the Company.
4. The Company tried to introduce a formula which would have different workers receiving different amounts of compensation - from 24 months compensation for workers who suffered a cut on the 1st of October, 2000, to nothing in the case of workers whose cut came after the 31st of December, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been a downturn in business since early 2001 which has continued into 2002.
2. The Company did not put an offer of compensation on the table as the Union claims. The Union made a proposal which has not been agreed to.
3. Overtime was not regular and rostered, nor was it guaranteed except when driven by the production demands of the Company.
4. The Union has changed the terms of reference for the calculation of the overtime compensation. The average overtime was not as high as the Union claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company has an established formula for the compensation of loss of earnings, based on twice the annual loss. Having regard to the extent to which the overtime at issue has become a regular and consistent feature of overall earnings, the Court believes that a similar compensation package should be applied in the present case (twice the annual loss).
However, regard must be had to the impact which changes in trading conditions and the full implementation of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, would, in any event, have had on the level of overtime worked.
In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Union's proposal as to the timescale within which individual loss is to be measured should be accepted. The compensation due should then be based on 75% of the amount identified.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th March, 2002______________________
CON/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.