FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Overtime premium rates
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the method of payment for overtime rates for sick-leave cover in the Company's two plants in Mitchelstown, Cork. Employees work an average of 42 hours per week - 48 hours one week and 36 hours in week two. Hours worked for basic pay are Monday to Friday up to 39 hours and all other hours are paid at overtime rates i.e. after 39 hours, and Saturday/Sunday irrespective of whether an employee has worked up 39 hours. Saturday/Sunday also attracts a shift premium of 28% on top of the overtime rate. The Company also has an arrangement whereby workers can "bank" hours worked whilst covering sick leave which, with overtime rates and shift pay, would equate to 2.24 paid hours per hour worked that they can take during the Company's off season (October - March). Following discussions the Company has arranged that workers can now chose a combination of pay/banked hours for covering sick leave. The Union's case is that when an employee is asked to provide an extra 12-hour shift to cover sick leave on their rostered day off (on a 36-hour week) the Company will only apply overtime rates after 39 hours, i.e. the first 3 hours of cover will be paid at basic pay. The Union claims that all hours worked outside of agreed roster hours should be paid at overtime rates.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th October, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th February, 2009, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All hours outside of the agreed rostered hours should be paid at the appropriate overtime rates once a workers have fulfilled all their rostered hours (84) over the two-week period. The Company already pays overtime if a worker has to cover for holiday leave on the 36-hour week. The same should apply to covering sick leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2008 the earnings of the workers concerned were well above the average industrial wage. In the current climate the Company cannot afford to add to its labour cost base. The workers already have a very good deal in relation to providing cover on their 36-hour week which allows them to bank hours and take paid time off.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties regarding the payment of overtime rates for the provision of sick cover at the Company’s Powder Plant in Mitchelstown. The Union argued that all hours outside the agreed rostered hours should be paid at the appropriate overtime rate, whereas the Company contended that it applied the overtime premia in accordance with its “Project Complete Agreement”.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court notes that the agreement in place to cover the required manning levels is a special agreement negotiated between the parties which contains elements unique to the individual circumstances pertaining in the Company.
The rostered arrangements provide for an average 42-hour week, spread over two weeks (36 hours in week one and 48 hours in week two). Unlike similar rostering arrangements in other companies providing 24 hour cover seven days per week, this specific agreement stipulates that employees must work 39 hours per week Monday to Friday before overtime premia apply, and Saturdays and Sundays are paid at overtime rates plus a shift premium of 28%.
The Court notes that the only exception to the rule is provided where a “Roster Group agrees to provide internal cover for annual leave”where the additional hours worked outside their roster are paid at the appropriate overtime rates.
The Court is of the view that in such circumstances, the Company’s arrangements are in accordance with those agreed. Consequently, the Court upholds the Company’s position and does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th March, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.