Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87805 Case Number: LCR11578 Section / Act: S67 Parties: - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim on behalf of one depot assistant for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
recommend payment of compensation in respect of the overtime lost
by the claimant.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87805 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11578
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one depot assistant for compensation for
loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Earlier this year, due to financial constraints, the Council
closed its Housing and Industrial Development Section and the
claimant was re-deployed to a road maintenance depot. Prior to
his re-deployment he had worked regular Saturday overtime for
approximately seven years. He worked eight hours each Saturday
which was paid at the usual rate, i.e. four hours at T + .50 and
four hours at double time (equivalent to fourteen single hours per
Saturday) which was worth approximately #55 per week (#2,682 per
annum approximately). When he was re-deployed his overtime ceased
and his Union is now seeking compensation on his behalf. The
amount being claimed is #15,000. The Council rejected the claim
and as local level discussions failed to resolve the dispute the
Union referred it to the conciliation service of the Labour Court
on the 24th July, 1987. No progress was made at a conciliation
conference held on the 19th October (earliest suitable date) and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 1st December,
1987 - the earliest date suitable to all parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the claimant started working overtime in 1979, he
was informed that it would entail security work and that as
such it would become a permanent feature of his employment.
In 1981, he bought a house and took out a mortgage on the
basis of this permanent Saturday overtime. Had this not
existed he would not have been in a position to take out the
mortgage. Since the overtime has ceased he finds it a severe
strain on his income to meet the re-payments and because of
this and other financial difficulties, he was under his
doctor's care for six weeks recently. The financial
institution has now made an agreement to reduce his monthly
payments but only until the 31st December, 1987.
2. The Union is aware that because of the Council's
financial situation, agreements have been made with the
general unions to cut back on overtime. However, it argues
that the claimant, because of the initial agreement made with
him, is not in the general overtime category but rather that
the Saturday work was part of his job and payment for that
work became a regular part of his income. Taking his age
into consideration, he had the expectancy that he would be in
receipt of #3,000 per annum (in current terms) for the next
sixteen years (he is currently 49 years old).
3. In discussions with the Council on the closure of the
Housing and Industrial Development Section, the Union was
informed that the claimant would not be re-deployed and would
be remaining where he was.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1985, the Council's financial position has been
deteriorating rapidly, particularly as a result of the severe
reductions in the amount of the Rates Support Grant which the
Government has been making available in recent years (details
supplied). In addition, the demand for local authority
housing has declined and therefore so too has the financial
allocation for its construction. The Council's programme for
the development of industrial sites has also declined
dramatically as a result of the recession and the drop in
demand for industrial sites.
2. In mid-1987, due to the lack of funds and lack of work to
be carried out, the Council was faced with having to close
the depot and either make the staff redundant or re-deploy
them elsewhere. The Council, in keeping with its policy,
re-deployed the claimant and as a result he is carrying out
the same type of work as he formerly did except there is no
Saturday overtime available.
3. The Court should note that between April and July, 1987,
the Council held a series of meetings with the Dublin County
Council Congress Group of Unions regarding its financial
position. Under the aegis of Officers of the Labour Court,
agreement was reached which resulted in very substantial cuts
in overtime without any compensation being payable. It is
the Council's current policy that only essential overtime is
worked.
4. Concession of this claim would set such a precedent
that in future the Council would have no option in similar
circumstances but to decide to make the persons redundant
rather than pursue its present policy of re-deployment.
5. There is a well established practice that where loss of
overtime results from a drop in business or the financial
position of the company, no compensation for the loss is
payable. The Labour Court has supported this view (details
supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
recommend payment of compensation in respect of the overtime lost
by the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th December, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman