Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87770
Case Number: LCR11588
Section / Act: S67
Parties: - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
|
Subject:
Claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the loss of overtime arises directly
from a recession in the Company's business and does not therefore
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87770 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11588
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GYPSUM INDUSTRIES P.L.C.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 2 electricians and 2 fitters employed by
the Company at Drumgoosat mine. Prior to January, 1987, a three
shift production, eight hours per shift, operation had been worked
for some time by underground production workers. In January, 1987
the Company terminated the night shift. In conjunction with this
shift the fitters and electricians had worked two hours overtime
four day a week every second week. They have now lost this
overtime. The Unions are claiming compensation for loss of
overtime earnings. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement
was reached through local negotiations and on 6th July, 1987 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 25th August, 1987
but no agreement was reached. On 12th October, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 18th November, 1987.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The overtime in question was rostered and compulsory, for
a long period of time. Therefore, the workers were entitled
to regard it as an integral part of their salary. Its
termination by unilateral action of the Company is not
acceptable. The overtime should therefore be reinstated or
should be paid for by way of compensation.
2. Since the Court already recognises the validity of the
inclusion of rostered overtime in holiday pay calculations
the Unions are confident that the Court will recognise the
validity of the claim.
3. The Company's decision to terminate the night shift was
not made due to a loss making situation.
4. The merits of the Unions' claim is not affected by the
fact that other groups of workers affected by the change in
shift did not claim compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The re-introduction of two shift working resulted from a
25% reduction in the amount of raw materials required from
the mine due to recession in the building industry and other
trading factors.
2. The workers concerned in this claim are a small group at
the mine. They were the least affected of all workers by the
introduction of two shift working. The necessity for the
change in shift was accepted by other groups of workers who
also accepted job losses and overtime reduction as a natural
consequence of the situation which prevailed. Consequently
no productivity or compensatory payments were either sought
or paid.
3. Fitting and electrical manning levels were not reduced
and are more than adequate to meet requirements at the mine
for the remaining maximum two years of its life.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the loss of overtime arises directly
from a recession in the Company's business and does not therefore
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
15th December, 1987. Deputy Chairman
T.O'M/J.C.