FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CARLOW ARTS CENTRE LTD. TRADING AS THE VISUAL CENTRE FOR CONTEMPORARY ART AND THE GEORGE BERNARD SHAW THEATRE (REPRESENTED BY O'MARA, GERAGHTY, MCCOURT, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IMPACT TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Non-payment for hours worked.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed as Theatre Manager from 1st December 2008 on a 39-hour a week contract until 31st May 2012, six months after her three-year contract was due to expire. An issue arose due to her continuously working in excess of the contracted hours in order to meet the demands of the job. The Claimant kept records of the hours worked and presented time sheets to Management over the period of her contract. The Claimant is of the opinion that because she was not afforded the opportunity to avail of'time off in lieu'(TOIL) she is entitled to be paid for the accumulated hours worked up over the three-and-a-half years of employment. The Union have estimated that she is owed a total of 276 days' additional pay but Management vigorously opposes such a contention.
On the 31st July, 2012 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st October, 2012.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of excessive hours was raised with Management on an ongoing basis between January 2009 and March 2012. Time sheets showing the numbers of hours worked were submitted to Management but the extra staffing support requested was not provided until 2011 when the Claimant's contract was coming to an end.
2. It is custom and practice for the Company to pay for"time off in lieu"
that has not been taken during employment. The 276 days' accumulated time should now be paid to the Claimant for the work she has done.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is clearly up to each Worker to manage their own working time better and avoid doing overtime which is not mentioned in the Claimant's contract. Additional supporting staff were allocated but the Claimant continued to accrue TOIL.
2. Prior to the expiry of her contract the Claimant was allowed two months' offset against her TOIL, working only on Mondays. She was also paid expenses, performance-related pay and an acting allowance despite the serious financial constraints on the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute. The Court recommends that the Centre pay the Complainant €7,500 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th November, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.