FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SR TECHNICS - AND - UNITE / TEEU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation For Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions claim before the Court is for compensation for loss of regular overtime earnings by a group of workers employed by the Company. Following a re-organisation in 2005, the workers concerned suffered a significant loss of regular earnings due to the curtailment of overtime available. The Unions argue that the workers were required to work a structured overtime regime to cover aircraft maintenance prior to 2006. The Company's position is that overtime is not, and never has been, guaranteed. Overtime is determined by operational needs.
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 2nd September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th October, 2008.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The workers concerned provided regular cover above their normal 39 hour week at the Company's behest. This overtime was a necessary part of the service supplied by their Department to the Company.
2The workers were not consulted on the new operating procedures and were not party to the agreements reached that allowed these changes to be implemented.
3 The workers have fully co-operated with new practices and procedures and have continued to be available for overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1The Company has never committed to guaranteed levels of overtime. Overtime is covered by the Company's agreements with the Unions and its use is determined solely by the operational needs of the business.
2 The Company has fulfilled its obligations as a good and responsible employer. The Unions and workers were given adequate notice that there would be a reduction in overtime.
3 Concession of this claim would have serious cost implications for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully evaluated the submissions of the parties. In its consideration of the case the Court has had regard to the difficult financial, commercial and employment circumstances of the Company. It is also noted that overtime at issue while regular was not rostered. Furthermore, the Court believes that this claim, if conceded, would lead to significant consequential claims from other groups whose circumstances are substantially similar.
Having regard to all of these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession to the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th November 2008______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.