FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Recoupment of overtime payments
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates on the basis of shift work which is mainly Monday to Friday, but there is also a weekend shift from Friday to Sunday. The Company states that it required new weekend workers to be trained. The training was to be provided by the 2 shift operators and was to be carried out on the weekend shift.
The Company claims that the normal overtime rates are time plus a half for the first four hours and double time thereafter. However, the operators providing the training sought double time for all hours worked on Saturday night during the training period.
Management agreed to pay the overtime rates at double time but stated that they were above the agreed rates and would seek to recoup the excess.
The Unions reject the claim for recoupment.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 16th July,2002 but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th July, 2002 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 3rd October, 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company agreed to pay double time as a holding situation to enable the training to go ahead. It indicated that it would seek to recover the overpayment.
2. The Unions have indicated that they will seek a similar payment for evening and day shift workers if the Company fails to recover the overpayment.
3. Failure to recoup the excess could be used as a precedent in the future both in terms of the standing of holding agreements and as a basis for future claims.
4. The Company asks the Court to uphold the terms of the holding agreement entered into by the Company and the Unions by upholding the refund of the overpayment.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is unreasonable for the Company to seek to take back what it had already agreed to pay.
2. The overtime was worked on a Saturday night by those whose normal working week was Monday to Friday. Given the unsocial hours involved, payment at double time was not excessive.
3. It is the Unions' view that while this overtime rate is in excess of the agreed rates, it should remain in place and should be extended to any other workers who worked similar overtime.
4 Overtime pay is not an individual rate. It applies by collective agreement between the Company and the Unions. Accordingly, if this group are to enjoy this improved benefit, it should also apply to others covered by that collective agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is fully satisfied that the position adopted by the company in relation to the rate payable in respect of the overtime at issue was correct. Accordingly, in line with the basis on which the payments were made, the excess is now recoverable.
The Court recommends that the company should now recover the overpayment sought but that the amount involved should be donated to a charity nominated by the unions. The overpayment should be recovered within four pay weeks.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October, 2002______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.