FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABBOTT IRELAND - AND - 4 NAMED OPERATIVES (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation For Loss Of Overtime
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of four of its members for compensation due to the loss of overtime. The Workers concerned worked a half an hour overtime every morning before the normal start time. This overtime was paid at a rate of double time. In February, 2008 the Workers were informed by the Company that the practice of working overtime before the normal start time would cease from 1st May, 2008. The Company's position is that as a result of changes in production, the work carried out during the morning overtime was no longer required. Three of the four Workers availed of voluntary redundancy on offer in December, 2009. The Union is seeking compensation for the loss of the morning overtime which has been in place for twenty years.
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 27th May, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The overtime was unique to the Workers concerned and was regular and rostered.
2 They worked these hours for over 20 years and built their lifestyle around this work pattern.
3 The Union has attempted to have this claim resolved since February, 2008 and contends that the Company made no effort to resolve it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Workers were informed of the need to cease the morning overtime and the rationale for doing so.
2 The Workers were eligible for alternative overtime which was open to all employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court brought by the Union on behalf of four operators concerns a claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings. The overtime was worked 30 minutes prior to normal starting time of the morning shift. The overtime has been in operation for over 20 years. In January 2008 the Company gave notice of its cessation and the overtime ceased on 1st May 2008. Three of the Claimants availed of voluntary redundancy and left the Company in December 2009.
The Company submitted that the Claimants were eligible for alternative overtime and in fact some of the Claimants earned more in overtime earnings after the cessation of the morning overtime. Furthermore, it held that where redundancy payments are made there is no justification for compensation for the loss of future earnings.
Having reviewed the information supplied to the Court outlining the loss of overtime earnings which occurred since the cessation of the morning overtime, the Court is of the view that there is justification for payment of compensation for the loss of overtime which occurred in respect of Ms. D, who continues to be employed by the Company and accordingly recommends that the Company should pay a lump sum of one and a half times the annual loss of morning overtime calculated by reference to the average morning overtime worked by Ms. D in the calendar years 2006 and 2007.
The Court recommends that this lump sum should be paid within six weeks of this Recommendation.
The Court does not recommend compensation for the three remaining Claimants who availed of a voluntary redundancy severance package in December, 2009.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th March, 2011______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.