INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Availability of overtime.
The dispute concerns a worker who is employed as a butcher by the Company in Cavan. The Union claim that the worker should be offered overtime on Sundays at his own rate in other departments in the Store. The Company reject this claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th March, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cavan on the 28th June, 2002, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
3. 1.The proposals on extended trading hours were included in an Agreement which was voted on and accepted by the membership. The agreement does not provide that overtime must be available in the section in which a worker is deployed in order to entitle that employee to rostered overtime.
2. When the agreement was made, Management were pressurising existing staff to volunteer for Sunday work.
3 It appears that Management are now isolating pre-1997 staff who retained existing conditions under a ‘red circling’ arrangement on the basis that a cheaper alternative is available.
4. Members who were not in a position to make themselves available for Sunday working in 1992 may become available in 2002 because of changed personal circumstances.
5. The worker has enhanced his skills by working in various departments on the Sundays he was rostered to work.
6. Concession of the claim would only incur a minor cost to the Company.
4. 1. Overtime is subject to the overall operational requirements of the store and always has been at the discretion of management.
2. There is no overtime currently available in the worker’s department. Should overtime arise the worker will be considered on a fair and equitable basis.
3. One of the Company’s main aims is to run on flat hours as much as is practicably possible.
4. The claim is cost increasing under the terms of the cost stabilisation clause of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
5. Facilitating the worker’s request to work overtime within the store would result in the Company having to terminate the employment of a number of part time employees.
The Court has given consideration to both the written and oral submissions of both parties. Having examined the claim the Court cannot see that there is merit in the claim. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th July, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.