Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87784 Case Number: LCR11559 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IMETU;ITGWU;FWUI |
Claim on behalf of seven drivers/hoist operators in the Housing Maintenance section for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the reasons for the cutback in
overtime working and the financial circumstances of the
Corporation, does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court recommends that the Corporation and the Unions should
meet and agree a framework within which problems such as these can
be discussed and equitable measures implemented.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87784 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11559
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of seven drivers/hoist operators in the
Housing Maintenance section for compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are three different types of hoists, the Simon, the
Armfield and the Condor. The basic weekly rates of pay for
drivers/operators are as follows:-
Min Max
Simon : #152.61 | #162.85
Condor : #159.81 | #169.97
Armfield : #151.42 | #161.60
Prior to May 1987, seven workers regularly worked overtime
operating these hoists, two on the Simon, two on the Condor and
three on the Armfield. The Union estimates that the loss of
overtime since May 1987 is #1,180 for the Simon operators and
#2,940 for the Condor operators. In the case of the Armfield
operators it is more difficult to estimate because they were on
other vehicles carrying overtime but this has been reduced since
November. It is estimated that the future annual loss will be
#3,000 each in the case of the Simon operators, #9,720 each in the
case of the Condor operators, #1,200 for two Armfield operators
and #2,500 for the third Armfield operator. The Union sought
restoration of the overtime or compensation for its loss. The
matter was referred, on 19th June, 1987, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 10th September, 1987, the earliest date suitable to the
parties. No agreement was reached and the matter was referred to
a full hearing of the Court. The hearing took place on 13th
November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The hoist operators have worked continuous regular
overtime over at least an eight year period. Overtime in
relation to these vehicles was discussed with the Corporation
and the precise hours agreed. The payment of overtime was
considered part of the total "package" for operating the
hoists.
2. There is a considerable degree of danger involved in
operating the hoists. The job requires skill, knowledge and a
sense of responsibility. In the Corporation there is a normal
weekly driving differential of #11.04 above the basic general
operative rate. Hoist operators receive #3.77 (Simon), #10.89
(Condor) and #2.52 (Armfield) more than drivers of lorries,
vans and cars.
3. The workers have suffered a serious loss of earnings as
a result of the loss of overtime. They had no reason to
believe that this would occur and they have foregone
opportunities to compete for promotional posts believing that
the overtime would continue. The claimants have also entered
into financial commitments on the basis of their level of
earnings to date.
4. The Unions acknowledge that the Corporation may be
experiencing financial pressures. However, it considers that
this small group of individuals should not have to bear undue
hardship as a result of this.
5. Ideally, the Unions would wish to have the overtime
restored. In the absence of this, they seek compensation of
one and a half times the annual loss.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation's financial situation. Its financial
position has deteriorated significantly since 1983. Following
the abolition of domestic rates in 1977 the amounts which
would have been levied in rates were paid to local authorities
from central government funds. Since 1983 there has been an
increasing shortfall under this heading which has a
significant effect on the Corporation's finances (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The Estimates of Income and Expenditure for 1987 adopted
by the City Council in May 1987 represented a reduction of
#3.2 million on the draft Estimates submitted by the City
Manager. These draft estimates in turn represented a further
#7.2 million reduction on the amounts requested by the various
Heads of Departments in order to maintain services at 1986
levels. The provision for general maintenance (from which the
claimants are paid) was reduced by much more than the average
reduction.
4. 3. The level of services provided by the Corporation has
been reduced and the maintenance of the existing workforce is
being placed in jeopardy. In the light of this situation
overtime working must, of necessity, be limited to exceptional
circumstances only.
4. The Corporation rejects the claim for compensation for
loss of overtime on the basis of its financial position. The
Labour Court has previously rejected such claims in cases
where the reason for the cutback in overtime was the financial
position of the employer.
5. The Corporation believes that concession of the claim
could have serious repercussive effects since there has been
widespread elimination of overtime throughout the various
Corporation services.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the reasons for the cutback in
overtime working and the financial circumstances of the
Corporation, does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court recommends that the Corporation and the Unions should
meet and agree a framework within which problems such as these can
be discussed and equitable measures implemented.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
4th December, 1987 --------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman