FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ESS LTD (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD SOLICITORS) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to compensation for loss of regular rostered overtime. The Union is seeking the agreed compensation of 1.5 times the annual loss as applies in similar circumstances. The Company rejects the Union's claim.
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 18th January 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June 2013.
EMPLOYERS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The overtime in question was not compulsory or rostered. It was voluntary in nature with no obligation on the workers to work the additional hours, therefore, the loss of overtime should not attract compensation.
2. The Company is not in a financial position to pay compensation as claimed by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The overtime was an established practice and the workers were expected to work the overtime in question. As a result the appropriate compensation formula should apply.
2. While there is no official overtime roster in place a standing agreement existed whereby if the workers were unavailable they did not have to do the additional hours, but on the majority of occasions the additional work was carried out by the person on call/stand-by.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of two Claimants for compensation of loss of overtime. The Claimants are assigned to work with Bord Gáis �ireann Networks as mechanical engineering technicians. The Union submitted that the Claimants normally worked overtime on Saturdays until this arrangement ceased on 28thJune 2011. Therefore the Union sought one and a half’s years’ compensation of the loss of overtime earnings.
The Company stated that the cessation of overtime was made by Bord Gáis and was therefore outside of its control. In any event it maintained that the overtime in question had not been rostered and the Claimants continued to be paid a stand-by payment and overtime rates when called out on Saturdays.
Having considered the submission of both parties, the Court is satisfied that the overtime in question was regular and that a pattern of working one in three Saturdays had been well established before its removal. The Court also notes that while it is clear that there is a drop in overtime earnings for Saturday working, the Claimants still earn a substantial level of overtime.
Therefore, in all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Company should pay the sum of €5,000 in two equal moieties to each of the Claimants concerned in full and final settlement of this claim. The first payment of €2,500 to each Claimant should be made on 1stJuly 2013 and the second on 1stJuly 2014.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th June, 2013.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.