Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86755
Case Number: AD86101
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners Recommendation concerning compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions in this case
decides that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be
upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th December, 1986 -------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman
Division:Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86755 THE LABOUR COURT AD101/86
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
DECISION NO. AD101/86
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation concerning compensation for loss of overtime.
Background:
2. This appeal concerns five postal sorters at Aer Lingus. Prior
to 1984, the workers concerned were responsible for the handling
and sorting of the company's agencies sales reports, cheques,
payslips and all incoming and outgoing correspondence. This work
led to the existence of overtime every month. In 1984, however,
the Company decided to computerise the agencies sales report.
This resulted in a nett loss of 705 hours per annum. Converted
into cash terms, this results in an average annual loss of
#1036.35 for each of the five workers concerned. The Union, on
behalf of the workers, served a claim on the Company for
compensation for the loss of overtime. No progress was achieved
at a series of local meetings and the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation. On 3rd July, 1986 the
Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
"As there is a permanent loss of regular overtime
caused by re-organisation there ought to be some
compensation. I estimate the average annual loss to
be approximately #1,000.00 and I recommend that each
of the five employees be compensated with half this,
that is #500.00."
On 25th September, 1986, the Union wrote to the Labour Court,
appealing against the Rights Commissioners Recommendation under
section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on 30th October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) It is an undisputed fact that the postal sorters
enjoyed this overtime, which was an integral part of
their earnings for well in excess of 10 years. Each of
the sorters concerned set their standard of living
relative to the established earning potential which
included this structured overtime. In the light of
these facts, the level of compensation recommended by
the Rights Commissioner is totally inadequate.
(ii) It is a well established precedent that where workers
lose structured overtime earnings, compensation falls
due to such workers. There is in fact an already
established precedent within Aer Lingus, where
compensation of twice the annual loss was recommended.
(AD-4-84 refers).
(iii) This case meets in full the well established criteria
to justify the Union's claim for 2 times the annual
loss. The overtime was regular and structured and long
standing. The workers had an expectation of on going
involvement in same and incurred on actual loss.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Standard basic pay in the Company is good, and the
working hours are not at all onerous when compared with
almost all other rostering arrangements for which
one-sixth shift pay is paid.
(b) The Company employs over 5,000 people in Ireland, most
of whom work overtime. Changes in overtime levels are
liable to occur from time to time depending on
workload, and the Company is vehemently opposed to
paying compensation for any drop in earnings of this
nature. Of the five workers concerned in this case,
the Company contends that in real terms four of the
workers suffered slight losses, or actually made gains
while the loss incurred by the fifth worker is due
partly to his non-availability for overtime on a
frequent basis (details with Court).
(c) The loss of the original overtime was due to
circumstances largely outside the control of the
Company (details with Court). However, this loss was
to an extent compensated for by the introduction of a
fortnightly pay system involving a direct transfer of
wages to workers' bank accounts. This has led to
increased opportunities for overtime for these workers.
(d) In L.C.R. No. 10,227 the Court rejected a similar claim
for overtime compensation. Given the severe
competitive pressure which the Company is now facing,
and the arguments outlined above, the Company requests
the Court to reject the claim for compensation.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions in this case
decides that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be
upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th December, 1986 -------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman