INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED
- AND -
AGEMO TRADE GROUP
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 1333/97.
2. In September, 1995, Roadstone Dublin Limited was given the contract to supply concrete for the building of the Jervis Street Shopping Centre. The Company used a small company fleet and a fleet of hired hauliers to complete the job. The direct employees were paid premium overtime rates as per the Company/Union Agreement. The hauliers were paid a fixed rate per delivery, regardless of whether the delivery was early morning or late at night.
The Company agreed to pay each haulier an additional payment of £400 on completion of the project to compensate for extra costs incurred.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of seven of its members for payment of a bonus similar to that paid to the hauliers. Agreement was not reached at local level and the Union referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 26th of May, 1998, as follows:-
"I recommend that the seven workers accept
that no payment is made."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 30th of November, 1998.
3. 1. The workers concerned worked over and above the call of duty in an effort to complete the project within the time limit.
2. They were not adequately compensated for the unsocial hours worked and the time spent away from home. They contributed to the success of the Jervis Street project.
3. The Union is claiming that the workers concerned be paid the bonus of £400 which was paid to the hauliers.
4. 1. The Company does not pay extra payments over the premium rates of overtime to individual employees or groups of employees.
2. Other categories of workers in the Company contribute to projects from time to time. These workers do not receive additional payments over the premium rates of overtime.
3. The Company operates in a very competitive market with a large number of competitors. If it concedes the Union's demand for extra payments when a project is completed it would result in the Company becoming uncompetitive.
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd December, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.