FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Disputed overpayment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the parties regarding an alleged overpayment. The dispute arises out of the parties conflicting interpretations of the meaning of an agreement that was concluded outside of the normal industrial relations procedures of the Company. The differing interpretations relates to whether the Workers concerned become entitled to overtime payments at the conclusion of an identified shift or after 39 hours have been worked in a given week. The differing interpretations have resulted in a disputed overpayment to Electricians in respect of their shift cycle. The Union's position is that the additional payments are expressly provided for in the agreement. It contends that Management acknowledged this fact on three occasions before the agreement was put to ballot. Management's position is that the additional payments amount to an administrative error that should be corrected at the first opportunity as they conflict with the standard practice applied to all other groups.
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 19th April, 2012. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th June, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The agreement provides for three hours built in overtime at the end of the third week of the shift cycle.
2. There is no overpayment as the overtime was expressly provided for in the agreement.
3. The terms of which should be honoured by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Standard practice across the company is to pay overtime after 39 hours have been worked.
2. This group alone are being paid overtime before 39 hours have been worked.
3. Such an arrangement was never envisaged by Management and the administrative error that gave rise to the overpayment should not bind the Company into the future.
4. The qualification criteria for the payment of overtime rates to this group should be brought into line with those applying in the Company generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute.
It is common case that Management on three separate occasions prior to a ballot taking place confirmed the accuracy of the Shop Stewards' interpretation of the proposals put by the Company. On the basis of those assurances they were accepted by the workers and subsequently implemented by management for a period of time.
When the nature of what had been implemented came to light the Company advised the workers concerned that the agreement as implemented was not in line with the intended meaning of the offer made and sought to give effect to the changes necessary to it to bring it into line with the actual intended offer and the arrangements in place with all other groups of workers in the Company.
The question before the Court is whether the offer as clarified to and accepted by the workers amounts to an agreement that binds the company or a mistake that should not bind it into the future.
The absence of written records of what transpired between the parties and the unusual nature of the negotiations are a serious disadvantage for the Court.
However having considered the matter the Court takes the view that both parties must be ad idem on the true meaning of the terms of an agreement. It is clear that this is not the case in this instance. The Court is satisfied that Management is responsible for this situation.
Mindful that the negotiations took place outside the normal Trade Union structure within the plant, the Court, in these exceptional circumstances, recommends that the parties engage with a view to agreeing terms upon which the arrangements in place for this group of Workers are brought into line with the intended terms of the proposals and the agreements that have been concluded with the trade unions and that apply generally across the company.
These discussions should be concluded within 8 weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
26th_July 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.