FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DANZAZ MEADOWS T/A DHL FREIGHT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hours of work
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in 1989 and currently works 8.am to 8.pm. Tuesday to Friday. The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by the worker for premium payments for working a 48 hour week. The worker contends that he is paid a 44 hour week and has sought a shift rate of pay or payment of overtime from the Company. The Company contends that the claim is without foundation.
- The matter could not be resolved at local level. On the 26th of November, 2003, the workerreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Preliminary Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of April, 2004, and resumed on the 30th of September, 2004.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. From 1992 until recently, the pay slips stated 48 hours normal. This has now changed to 44 hours normal. No discussions took place regarding this change.
2.There was an agreement with the Company that lunch hour would be paid.
3.The worker had discussions with Management regarding payment of a shift rate or payment of overtime as the hours worked are unsociable and was informed that because he did not work weekends or nights he did not qualify.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker physically works a 44 hour week but is paid for 48 hours. He agreed to work a 44 hour week when he commenced employment in 1989. The worker is on a personal arrangement that does not necessitate weekend or shift work. This is a practice that the Company is not obliged to do.
2.The worker’s rate of pay is higher than employees within other parts of the Company and is higher than actual industry rates.
3.The Company has signed a new comprehensive merger with two other Companies. Terms and conditions of employment will be changed to reflect the nature of the new entity.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is on behalf of one worker, seeking premium payments for working a 48 hr week.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does not see merit in the claim as presented.
The Company indicated to the Court that the claimant’s working arrangements are personal to him – all others on the same grade operate both night and weekend shifts for which they receive shift premia. Having examined the rate paid to the claimant, the Court is satisfied that his pay is reflective of his working arrangements and therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
In light of the potential changes which are due to take place in the Company in January 2005, which may impact on his working conditions, the Court is of the view that his position must be capable of being reviewed at the time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th October, 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.