FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss of Earnings (Follow-on overtime).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Cork City and manufactures and packages in kegs and bottles a range of premium brands which include Beamish Stout and employs 150 workers. The Union claims that the workers, both fitters and electricians, are at a financial loss due to the Company eliminating follow-on overtime when a second shift is put on production. The Union are claiming compensation for the loss of earnings.
- The Union claims that when there is no second shift on production that the company pays the follow-on overtime from 4pm to 6.30pm. There is no reason why this should not continue when production goes on second shift.
The Company contend that there is no agreement to pay overtime when a second shift comes on production and that any maintenance cover for that shift is done by fitters on the 4pm to midnight shift.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th August, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st March, 2006.
3.1 In October, 2004 the Union objected when guaranteed follow on overtime was unilaterally removed by the Company.
2. Precedent dictated that follow on overtime which required the Craftsperson to provide cover would be operated to facilitate the run out of the Bottling Plant and other production overtime.
3. Management's position that all overtime would be at Management's discretion was seen by the Union as a departure from the guaranteed arrangements which meant that all future overtime would be on availability and not mandatory as heretofore.
4. During discussions the Union put forward several proposals which were cost effective and more appropriate to the worklife balance requirements in 2005/2006. All were rejected out of hand.
5. In October, 2005, when a 3rd shift was introduced, follow on overtime was withdrawn. The Company agreed to apply a compensation formula agreed with SIPTU to TEEU members in recognition of the Union's position on overtime (appendix 3 and 4 of submissions).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 An agreement on follow on overtime existed for fitters but not for electricians. The agreement was addressed as part of Labour Court Recommendation LCR 18343. The original follow on overtime agreement was covered by a day fitter.
2. The follow on overtime arrangements is no longer required as it is an unnecessary cost to the business.
3. The Company has accepted an annual payment to compensate in relation to this unnecessary arrangement as recommended inLabour Court Recommendation LCR 18343.
4. Follow on overtime never existed while operating on shift.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for compensation for loss of earnings for the elimination of follow-on overtime for both Fitters and Electricians, when the Company operates a second shift on production.
The practice of production related overtime developed over the years whereby a Fitter on day shift or day hours worked on until the line operation finished. The majority of the follow-on overtime was carried out by the Fitters on day shift, paying 2.5 hours @ time and ½ on shift rate. The Company stated that this practice was not a Company requirement as the two Fitters on evening shift could adequately support the bottling line. The Company sought to eliminate the restrictive practice of follow-on overtime and contended that this was dealt with by Labour Court Recommendation No: 18343.
The Court notes that compensation was already paid by the Company for the loss of follow-on overtime when it introduced a third shift on the bottling line in October 2005.
Fitters will continue to be expected to do overtime from 7am to 8am and from midnight to 1am. However, the Union held that the Company’s intention to allocate all overtime at management’s discretion was a departure from the guaranteed arrangement.
The Court accepts that the principle of the elimination of follow-on overtime was dealt with by LRC No: 18343 however, the recommendation did not deal with the financial loss implications.
The Court is satisfied that a practice developed over a considerable number of years whereby Fitters have worked follow-on overtime for the period between 4pm to 6.30pm when the bottling plant was not operating on shift and this arrangement is now ceasing. The Court accepts that cessation of the practice and its replacement by management’s right to allocate overtime when necessary are enshrined in the seventeen points referred to in Labour Court Recommendation No: 18343.
Therefore, the Court accepts that the Fitters have incurred a financial loss due to the loss of follow-on overtime between 4.00pm and 6.30pm, which warrants compensation. Accordingly, the Court recommends that compensation should be paid to the Fitters involved in this claim, however, this is conditional upon acceptance of Labour Court Recommendation No: 18343.
The Court is satisfied that the Company had no agreement with Electricians on follow-on overtime, and that follow on overtime only commenced for the Electricians in 2003. Therefore, the Court finds no grounds for the claim on behalf of the Electricians.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th April, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.