Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87134 Case Number: LCR11102 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: POWER SECURITIES LTD - and - MR. B. O'CONNOR |
Claim, by a worker for compensation for loss of earnings and disturbance money.
Recommendation:
5. It appears to the Court on the evidence submitted to it that
any loss of earnings incurred by the claimant has been brought
about, to a large extent, by the restrictions he has placed on his
availability. The Court accordingly does not consider it would be
justified in recommending any compensation. The Court so
recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87134 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11102
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11102
PARTIES: POWER SECURITIES LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Claim, by a worker for compensation for loss of earnings and
disturbance money.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company in June,
1982, as a security officer/maintenance man. The original hours
that the worker was employed for were, 10.50 hours a day, 6 days a
week, total 63 hours, plus any maintenance that had to be done
after hours. These hours were worked for a few months until the
worker's doctor told him to cut down. He then worked 52.50 hours
per week, plus maintenance until November, 1986. At the end of
November, 1986, the worker was moved to a different location, with
less hours. There was also further duties to be carried out,
including cleaning and delivering mail. The Company said that it
is responsible for the development, management and maintenance of
a number of properties in the Dublin region. It employs it's own
staff and has always rotated the personnel employed in its various
centres. Further, the Company felt that it had already attempted
to accommodate the worker concerned as much as possible, in that
it had given him the reduced hours, as requested by the doctor and
accepted his wish not to work night shift. As the parties could
not reach agreement on the issue, the worker, on 16th February,
1987, referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. Prior to a Court hearing on 18th March,
1987, the worker concerned agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
Worker's arguments:
3. (a) The worker's hours were cut when a new security rota
was introduced in November, 1986, and then cut further
when he was shifted to a new location. This reduction
in hours has also led to a reduction in wages.
(b) The duties that the worker has to perform in the new
location were not required of him prior to being
re-located. He now has to perform duties such as
sweeping, cleaning toilets, delivering mail etc. The
worker was not informed that he would have to perform
any of these duties when he was employed in June, 1982.
(c) The Company told the worker that he could change his
day off to Saturday and that he could then perhaps
obtain part-time work at the weekends to enhance his
earnings. The Company subsequently said this could not
be done and that he could take only one Saturday in
five as his day off.
(d) The worker was informed that the person with the least
hours would be asked to work at private functions.
This has not happened.
(e) The worker concerned now has parking problems due to
the later start in the mornings. In his old location
he was able to leave the premises to pay the parking
meter. Since he is the only security man in the new
location, this is not always possible.
(f) It is more difficult for the worker to operate in the
new location, which is more confined than the old
location. He must leave the premises for his lunch
break, as there is no facilities for eating. He is
also more or less static at the entrance door, whereas
in the old location he was floor walking for the last
4.50 years.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The worker concerned was employed by the Company in
June, 1982. At that time he worked a 6 day week with
an average weekly hours of circa. 60 hours. He was
not prepared to do the evening shift or the night
shift and, indeed, will still not undertake the night
shift, even though 24 hour security is required by
customers. The Company has reluctantly accepted
this.
(ii) The new security rota was introduced to ensure
adequate senior security cover in the locations under
the Company's control during the period of high
security risk. Other workers in the Company have had
a greater reduction in the number of hours worked
than the worker concerned. (Details provided to the
Court). The worker's hours for maintenance work are
lower than others because he has declined to
undertake maintenance work, which is normally done at
night.
(iii) It would not be possible for any senior security
personnel to have each Saturday off, as this is the
busiest trading day and additional security is
required. Should one employee receive favoured
treatment, it would put an added burden on the other
staff, which would be unfair, inequitable and unjust.
(iv) The worker was not asked to work at a function on new
year's eve because the location manager thought he
was involved in another function that night.
However, the worker did not volunteer his services as
he could have. Furthermore, the worker has already
refused to do the night shift and therefore he would
not be available for evening functions.
(v) The Company has tolerated, in the past, employees
leaving their locations to feed their parking meters.
However, this is not a condition of employment and
the Company cannot be responsible for the parking
problems of employees who choose to travel by private
transport, which is not required in the performance
of the job, rather than public transport.
(vi) The duties in both the old and new locations are
similar. The size of the new location is appreciably
smaller and so, some additional work, which could be
delegated to others in the old location, would need
to be undertaken in the new location.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It appears to the Court on the evidence submitted to it that
any loss of earnings incurred by the claimant has been brought
about, to a large extent, by the restrictions he has placed on his
availability. The Court accordingly does not consider it would be
justified in recommending any compensation. The Court so
recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
3rd_April,__1987.
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.