Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

A Manufacturing Company

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

John Farrell Ibec

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00045770-001

23/08/2021

The employee has a dispute with the employer regarding the allocation of overtime.

The employee has processed a grievance through the internal procedures regarding his understanding that an overtime shift which became available to clean a particular system should have been assigned to him in line with normal practice.

The principle that is in place for providing cover through over-time during periods of annual leave and sick leave is the same practice that is applied for irregular over-time.

There is a shift cycle roster in place comprising of 3 shifts on, 3 shifts off cycle with rotating days and nights, therefore the working practice applied to over-time is “The first two days after days and the first two nights before nights” is applied for identifying eligibility of operatives for overtime.

The practice outlined above has been consistently applied prior to 23rd June 2020 and is the current practice being applied, this is a one off incident which has caused financial loss to the employee by the procedure not being applied correctly.

This resulted in a net loss of €330.  There was not a written outcome of the grievance, however it is understood that Management agreed that the incorrect process was applied and gave assurances that this would not happen again. The employee appreciated that Management recognised that the wrong process was applied but remained aggrieved that he was out of pocket due to this error.  

This case arises from a claim by an operator in regard to overtime call-in practice - claiming

that he should have been called in to work overtime in a particular circumstance, and that

he was not called in because of some personal point of view against him on the part of the

supervisor. The company position is that the supervisor acted in the same way as he had previously

done, and did so in good faith.

During the grievance process, the employee stated:

‘This grievance was not about the money or the overtime, he does plenty of overtime, but it

was the way he was not asked when he should have been, and he wanted it stopped now

before it happened again.’

The company declined to offer any compensation as it is not accepted that the supervisor

acted in any way wrongly.

During the grievance discussions it emerged that the particular circumstances were such

that they did not fall easily into the rules concerning overtime cover and there was a degree

of variation between supervisors - however the supervisor, in this instance

dealt with it as he had always done, and there was no inconsistency on his part.

It is submitted that it is always possible that situations such as this can arise, and the

appropriate way of dealing with them is to clarify future practice, as was done.

This situation should properly be considered not as a ‘loss of overtime’ on the

part of the claimant - rather that there was a circumstance that did not fall clearly into the

agreed rules. The appropriate response is to clarify for the future - not to compensate a

specific person.

There was no ‘saving’ to the company - an employee was called in and the overtime was

done and paid for.

The responsibility for any lack of clarity in the agreed arrangements falls jointly on the

company and the union. If the calling in of employees for overtime is to be in some degree

operated under agreed arrangements, then both parties have to ensure that the

arrangements agreed do not give rise to grievance.

There is considerable overtime worked in the company and the arrangements work well.

I note this grievance has been concluded to what appears to be the satisfaction of all with the exception of the financial ‘loss’ the employee claims.  I recommend that the agreement between the parties to cover overtime for the particular task be committed to writing to avoid any disagreements in the future.  As a token of goodwill, the employer should offer the employer the sum of €165 to close the matter.

Loss of overtime.