FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SABREWATCH LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for loss of overtime earnings by 13 security officers. The Company supplies a retail security service almost exclusively to Marks and Spencer Limited in Ireland, Britain and other parts of Europe. The claim is for payment of 2.5 times the annual overtime loss, based on earnings during the calendar year 1995. It concerns officers employed in Dublin only.
Officers are guaranteed 5 shifts per week. Shifts are for a duration of 8 - 12 hours. The Union claims that up to the end of 1995 overtime was regular and rostered, and that this ceased in 1996. The Company maintains that, while overtime can occur, because of the nature of the business it cannot be rostered.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 25th July, 1996. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5th September, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Overtime is only worked after officers have worked 5 days or shifts per week. In 1994 and 1995, most of the officers concerned worked 6/7 days per week for at least 10 months of the year. (A list of the hours worked was supplied by the Union). The overtime was not worked on an "emergency" basis but was a regular part of their employment and pay.
2. Every officer worked overtime as required on a regular basis. Between January and the end of June, 1996, management eliminated virtually all overtime. This contradicts its assertion that overtime working is beyond its control. The result is a loss of approximately £70 per worker per fortnight. The Union's claim for 2.5 times the annual loss is not unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no guaranteed overtime in the Company. Because of the nature of the business there are "peaks and troughs". There are a number of elements which affect the amount of overtime available e.g., seasonal or emergency situations like Christmas and the breakdown of the IRA cease-fire, clients' requirements, sickness, absenteeism and compassionate holidays.
2. The Company experienced problems with lateness and absenteeism in late 1995. It had to fulfil its commitment by reverting to "emergency overtime" from officers who were willing to cover extra hours. A number of the officers were not interested in overtime on their rostered days off. The Company also employed an extra officer to cover the absenteeism. This further reduced the overtime available. Since July, 1996, there has been an increase in overtime due to the opening of a new store. Average overtime earnings in 1996 have not decreased compared to 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is conscious that business fluctuations do occur as a result of the changing nature of contracts in this industry. This results also in earning fluctuations for individuals.
In this particular case, the Court finds that grounds have not been shown for payment of compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
18th November, 1996______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.