FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for compensation for loss of overtime. This 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 15th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers were obliged to work this regular and rostered overtime.
2 The Workers have suffered considerable financial loss.
3 The Workers should be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The overtime was regular but was neither rostered nor obligatory.
2 The Company Union Agreement clearly states that overtime depends on the business of business and cannot be guaranteed.
3.The Company is fighting to survive and cannot afford to conceed this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The agreement in place between the Union and the Company makes it clear that overtime cannot be guaranteed and is dependent on the demands of the business. The Court does not see any justifiable reason as to why it should disregard the clear terms of that collective agreement in its consideration of the case. The overtime in issue in this case was entirely demand driven and the reduction in the level of overtime occurred in consequence of the fall-off in demand for the product produced by the Company.
On that basis this case can clearly be distinguished from the other cases relied upon by the Union in advancing its claim in which compensation for loss of overtime was recommended by the Court. In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th March, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.