Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD89686
Case Number: AD8976
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW180/89, concerning a dispute about compensation for loss of rostered overtime.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Union accept that the present
arrangement is fair to the worker and he is not entitled to
compensation."
NOTE: The worker was named in this recommendation.
The Union appealed the recommendation on 27th September, 1989.
The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 24th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did suffer a loss. The Company nomimated
four hours of the overtime which the worker would have worked
anyway on his present job, as rostered overtime.
2. Rostered overtime has always been attributed to the job
and not to the worker. The Company discontinued the job
requiring rostered overtime and so in line with previous
agreements, the rostered overtime should be bought-out. The
Company state that the worker is not entitled to a buy-out of
rostered overtime until his existing overtime reduces to zero
hours. This has not been the case as they have bought-out by
agreement rostered overtime in areas where there has been a
retention of production overtime, even in cases where there
has been an increase in production overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has red circled four hours rostered overtime
per week on a personal basis for the worker. This maintains
his overtime position as it was before rationalisation. For
holiday and pension purposes the worker is fully protected and
at no loss.
2. Other production overtime has complimented the loss of
the K.2 stocktaking rostered overtime duties. The worker's
average weekly overtime for the end of March, 1985, 1986 and
1987, was 4.45 hours, 9.96 hours and 10.84 hours respectively.
His average weekly overtime for the same periods in 1988 and
1989 was 16.28 hours and 15.27 hours. The worker has on
occasions refused other overtime offered to him.
DECISION:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties and noted that
there will not be any loss of income to the claimant, the Court
does not find any grounds to justify altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89686 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946-1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW180/89, concerning a dispute about
compensation for loss of rostered overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned with the dispute worked in the Company's
K.2 Blank Store. He worked eight hours overtime per fortnight
(five on stocktaking duties and three on stock queries). In
September, 1987, following a rationalisation programme the K.2
Blank Store closed and the worker transferred to another area
within the company where stocktaking duties were no longer
required. The Union served a claim for compensation because of
the worker's loss of rostered overtime - rostered overtime is for
a particular job and is included in pay for holidays and pension
purposes. The claim was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
investigation in July, 1989. His findings and recommendation are
as follows:-
"Findings
It is evident that at least 2 1/2 hours per week of rostered
overtime has been abolished. The worker has not suffered by
his transfer and he receives enhanced overtime, albeit not
rostered. The Company has designated 4 hours per week of
this overtime to be rostered thus maintaining the rostered
element of the previous arrangement. This seems to be
perfectly reasonable and not in any way disadvantageous to
the worker.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Union accept that the present
arrangement is fair to the worker and he is not entitled to
compensation."
NOTE: The worker was named in this recommendation.
The Union appealed the recommendation on 27th September, 1989.
The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 24th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did suffer a loss. The Company nomimated
four hours of the overtime which the worker would have worked
anyway on his present job, as rostered overtime.
2. Rostered overtime has always been attributed to the job
and not to the worker. The Company discontinued the job
requiring rostered overtime and so in line with previous
agreements, the rostered overtime should be bought-out. The
Company state that the worker is not entitled to a buy-out of
rostered overtime until his existing overtime reduces to zero
hours. This has not been the case as they have bought-out by
agreement rostered overtime in areas where there has been a
retention of production overtime, even in cases where there
has been an increase in production overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has red circled four hours rostered overtime
per week on a personal basis for the worker. This maintains
his overtime position as it was before rationalisation. For
holiday and pension purposes the worker is fully protected and
at no loss.
2. Other production overtime has complimented the loss of
the K.2 stocktaking rostered overtime duties. The worker's
average weekly overtime for the end of March, 1985, 1986 and
1987, was 4.45 hours, 9.96 hours and 10.84 hours respectively.
His average weekly overtime for the same periods in 1988 and
1989 was 16.28 hours and 15.27 hours. The worker has on
occasions refused other overtime offered to him.
DECISION:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties and noted that
there will not be any loss of income to the claimant, the Court
does not find any grounds to justify altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
7th November, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman