FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LISHEEN MINE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Dispute regarding payment of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. Lisheen Mine currently employs 338 people in the extraction of ore from its underground mine. The Lisheen Mine has a relatively short mine life and current planning suggests that the operations will cease in 2013. The dispute before the Court concerns 51 employees working as craftsmen in the mine.
In 1999 the Company entered into an agreement with the TEEU and SIPTU. The arrangements concerning payment of overtime were negotiated and agreed. The agreement states that "overtime will only be paid where an employee has completed 39 hours in the particular week". Overtime has been paid on this basis since the start of operations.
The TEEU is in dispute with Lisheen Mine over the refusal by the Company to engage with the Union to resolve the practice of penalising members who work overtime in a week that they have been genuinely ill by only paying the flat rate.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commissions. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th December. 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Agreement has as its' spirit and intent a partnership approach which is all embracing and this should eliminate the need for recourse to industrial action.
2. The Union's members have, in the interest of good industrial relations practice, followed the procedures as laid down in the Agreement and have not abused it in any way.
3. Employees who are genuinely ill should not be penalised if asked to work overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believe that the claim for overtime to be paid on a daily basis is outside the terms of the current National Wage Agreement.
2. The paragraph in the Company/Union Agreement is quite specific in its meaning relating to when payment for overtime would apply. Overtime has been paid on this basis since commencement of operations.
3. It is an industry norm that payment for overtime applies when the normal working week is completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the strict application of the agreement at issue can lead to some anomalies. So as to resolve this matter the Court recommends that up to three medically certified absences in any calendar year would not result in the loss of overtime premia.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th April, 2006______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.