FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAMOND INNOVATIONS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Allocation of Overtime
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the allocation of overtime. There are permanent employees who are on an annualised hours system and there are also temporary staff in employment. The Union contends that overtime that arises should be allocated equally between both categories of employees. Management contends that it is more cost effective to apply overtime rates to the temporary workers as their rate of pay is lower. In addition management contends that it hopes to be able to employ more people in the future as customer demand increases which could make overtime unecessary.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 14th April, 2011. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th August, 2011 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers have engaged proactively with management in securing the future viability of the organisation. They have suffered reductions in earnings and now overtime (as the need arises) will only be offered to temporary workers.
2 As the workers have already got a "prepaid" overtime element in their annualised hours, it would be more practical to use these banked hours as opposed to incurring additional costs by paying overtime rates to temporary workers. Any subsequent overtime beyond those already paid for should be applied fairly between both categories of workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The agreements concluded between the parties and the positive engagement of the workforce has resulted in the continued survival and future viability of the organisation. At present there is no overtime needed but in the event that customer demand increases, it would be more cost effective to pay overtime rates to temporary workers as they have a lower rate of pay.
2 The Company will endeavour to provide greater employment opportunities into the future should the need arise. This would be the preferable option and will result in a reduced need for overtime payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that questions concerning the allocation of overtime could more usefully be addressed when the future composition of the workforce is determined and the conditions of employment applicable to newly recruited staff are established.
The Court therefore rercommends that the matter now before it be discussed between the parties when these issues are being finalised.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th September 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.