LCR15632

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/303 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15632 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF IRELAND (UPS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu

SUBJECT:
1. Alleged discrimination in relation to overtime.





BACKGROUND:

2. The worker was employed by Walsh Western from 1st July, 1986 as a Senior Credit Controller. He subsequently transferred to UPS on the 20th January, 1992 with the same conditions of employment.

He received a contract of employment outlining his duties with UPS. The worker was informed that his duties would include the sorting of queries and invoicing.

The worker and his colleagues were subsequently asked to do some overtime which he did for several days including Saturdays.

He has not been asked to work any further overtime for approximately 3 years. The Union claims that it is because of the worker's rate of pay that he has not been asked to do overtime. The worker is the highest paid member of staff in his section.



The Company rejects the Union's claim and states that the worker does not have the necessary data entry skills to be offered the overtime. The worker requested that the dispute be referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such a referral. The worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 29th July, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. The Company has an obligation to ensure that the worker has the necessary data entry skills so he can benefit from the availability of overtime.

2. His contract of employment with the Company sets out the overtime rates which he is entitled to.

3. The worker claims that his colleagues who attended for overtime have the same key entry skills as he has.

4. The overtime should be shared in an equitable manner and the worker should not be excluded for dubious reasons.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:


4. 1. Overtime is given at Management's discretion.

2. The worker concerned does not have the necessary data entry skills to perform overtime.

3. The Company rejects the claim that there was any discrimination towards the worker. Other workers within the Credit Control Department were not selected for overtime.




RECOMMENDATION:

The Court finds that this issue has as much to do with rate of pay applicable to this worker when undertaking overtime as with the skills required for the job. The Court finds no valid reason why he should be excluded particularly given that the incidents of overtime are so occasional.

The Court considers the parties should agree an arrangement for the equitable distribution of overtime.

Given the rate of pay generally applicable and the rate of pay of the claimant they should discuss the rate to be applied to overtime working.



The Company should arrange to redress any deficiencies the claimant or other members of staff may have in keyboard skills.

The Court so recommends.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Tom McGrath
15th September, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.