FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROOKS HANLEY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 14 workers in a section of the Company known as the timber yard, and concerns an alleged loss of overtime earnings.
The Company claims that the yard was in a constant state of disrepair and in the late 1990s decided to tidy it up. (The state of the yard had resulted in regular overtime for the employees concerned.). The improvement in the yard meant a reduction in the amount of overtime needed. The Union referred a case for compensation to the Company, claiming that regular overtime had become a way of life for the workers. The Company rejected the claim and, as a result, the workers ceased all overtime. Despite a number of meetings at local level the dispute could not be settled.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of September, 2003, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Theworkers enjoyed regular overtime 2/3 times per week and it had become a regular source of income for them. Following the clean-up in the yard, overtime only occured at stock taking and on the arrival of a ship load of timber in Sligo Docks.
2. The Union has been trying since February, 2001, to resolve the issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company decided to re-organise the timber yard following numerous complaints from employees and their officials over the state of the yard.
2. The improvements to the yard meant a healthier and safer environment. It also meant storage of product was easier and this resulted in less overtime being needed.
3. The employees themselves instituted a total ban on overtime. The Company initiated discussions to seek an agreement on overtime as needed and minor changes to work practices but could not get a commitment from the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the parties should have further discussions with a view to agreeing the changes in work practice proposed by the Company. The Union should also remove its embargo on overtime working, and work overtime as and when required.
If agreement is reached on the changed work practice and overtime resumed, the Company should consider the Union's claim in respect of any loss of earnings arising from loss of overtime which resulted from factors outside the control of employees. The extent of the loss should be measured by reference to the overtime earnings made available for a full year after the embargo is lifted as compared to the average overtime earnings of each individual in the three years preceding the imposition of the embargo.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th September, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.