Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86807 Case Number: LCR10866 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CO. CO. - and - LGPSU |
Claim on behalf of a water and drainage inspector for payment of compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends that the claimant should accept compensation of
#220 in settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86807 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10866
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10866
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a water and drainage inspector for payment
of compensation for loss of earnings.
Background:
2. Within the Council area there are a number of pumping stations
which require inspection at week-ends and on public holidays by
water and drainage inspectors. Payment for this duty is made by
way of an allowance based on overtime rates.
3. The worker was employed in the Lucan area between 1982 and
1984 where there were two pumping stations requiring inspection.
He was paid #15 per week overtime for carrying out the inspection.
In 1984 the worker was transferred to the Tallaght area where
there are no pumping stations. Consequently the worker lost the
#15 per week earnings. The Union, on behalf of the worker
concerned, served a claim on the Council for the payment of
compensation to the worker in respect of his loss of earnings.
The Council rejected the claim and as no agreement could be
reached at local level the matter was referred on 26th November,
1985, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 13th February, 1986, at which
it was agreed to refer the matter back to local level. In the
course of negotiations at local level the Council, in an effort to
reach agreement, offered the worker #150 nett by way of
compensation. This was rejected by the Union and the matter was
referred back to conciliation. Following a further conciliation
conference, held on 26th September, 1986, the claim was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 17th November, 1986 - the
earliest suitable date to the parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Arising from a claim by all the unions involved for a
review of the station allowance the Council increased
the allowance and decided to rationalise the
inspection of stations and indicated a number of
stations which did not require inspections at
week-ends or on public holidays. As a consequence a
number of inspectors lost their stations and
appropriate earnings. A claim by the unions for
compensation was referred to a Rights Commissioner who
recommended a sum of #800 per person. Given that the
worker through his transfer, has lost his inspection
allowance, which calculated under the revised payment
for such allowances would amount to #812.26 per annum,
he should receive the same compensation awarded by the
Rights Commissioner in similar circumstances.
(ii) The Union's claim is a valid one and should be
conceded.
Council's arguments:
5. (a) The Union's contention that the worker's claim is
similar to the claim brought by other inspectors and
which was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is not valid. In that case the
inspectors had the additional earnings for so long
that they came to regard them as a regular part of
income. Also the number of stations to be inspected
was being reduced, thereby creating savings to the
Council. In the worker's case he had the additional
earnings for only two years and was aware, following
his promotion to inspector, that he would be
transferred to Tallaght at the first opportunity.
Furthermore, the inspections of the water pumps at
Lucan were taken over by the worker's successor and
consequently, there was no saving to the Council.
(b) In a previous Labour Court Recommendation
(Recommendation No. 8862 refers) the Court rejected a
claim for payment of compensation for loss of overtime
on the basis that the employees involved were still in
receipt of substantial overtime earnings. In this
respect, the worker still earns substantial overtime
earnings and figures indicate that this is actually
increasing (details supplied to the Court).
(c) The Council's offer is fair and reasonable and is more
favourable than that accepted by another inspector in
similar circumstances.
(d) Given the Council's current serious financial position
(details supplied to the Court) it is essential that
unreasonable claims should not succeed. In this
regard the Court, in Recommendation No. 10603, did not
recommend compensation because of the financial
position of the Council.
(e) In all the circumstances the Council's offer should be
accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends that the claimant should accept compensation of
#220 in settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman