LCR22677

1. Compensation For Loss of Earnings


BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 3^rd March 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20^th October 2022.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. Members have worked regular overtime for 30 years and seek compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
2. In 2016 a no overtime policy was introduced.
3. In 2018, capacity returned to normal and regular overtime should have returned. Members claim a loss of earnings as a result of reduced overtime for the period 2018-20.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1. Overtime is worked on an ad hoc basis and only when required.
2. Overtime is voluntary and not regular or rostered.
3. The maintenance workers involved in this dispute are excluded from seeking compensation by virtue of their contracts of employment and/or previous settlement agreements.




RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim of compensation for loss of earnings relating to a loss of overtime in the engineering department for the period from 2018 to 2020.

The union contends that prior to 2016 overtime was worked on a regular basis to cover holidays, breakdowns, scheduled maintenance and training. Following the introduction of an overtime policy in 2016, overtime hours were drastically reduced resulting in a substantial loss of earnings for members. The reduction in hours range from 50 hours per annum up to 500 hours per annum. The union accepts that it is at company’s discretion to use overtime. However, the union contends that when the number of presses was increased in 2018 at which point overtime should have returned to normal pre-2016 levels. The union’s claim relates to the period from 2018 when normal overtime should have returned when capacity increased 110%.

The company’s position is that overtime is not guaranteed. It is worked on an ad hoc basis and only as required. Any overtime that becomes available is voluntary in nature. As business practices have become more efficient the requirement for overtime has lessened.

The claim relates to seventeen of the thirty-two staff in the engineering department. The staff encompassed by this claim are excluded from pursuing compensation claims by virtue of their contracts of employment, which specify that all overtime should be treated as exceptional and not considered part of normal earnings, or by previous settlement agreements made in full and final settlement of any future compensation claims.

The Court has considered the written and oral submission made by both parties. Having carefully reviewed the documentation presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that the overtime at issue in this dispute is not regular and rostered in nature.

In these circumstances, and in line with its normal practice, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
NCL	______________________
14 November 2022	Deputy Chairman