Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86779 Case Number: AD8711 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN CO. CO. - and - FWUI |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/16,924 concerning claims for compensation for loss of overtime and seniority for a worker.
Recommendation:
"The overtime was regular enough to have the status of being
rostered but it must have been evident to him that it could
not continue indefinitely. There is no assurance that
overtime in the future will reach anything near its
previous level but nonetheless his losses will be reduced
by it to a fair degree. I believe that he should get some
compensation so I recommend half his annual loss, that is
the Council should concede a sum of #750.
The Council cannot be held accountable for any loss in
seniority on refuse crews."
Both parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 13th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned would not have agreed to report to
Balgriffin had he known that the overtime arrangement
was to be discontinued. The depot at Swords was more
convenient to him and he bought a car when he was
transferred to Balgriffin so that he could travel to
work.
(b) The claim for compensation is based on twice the annual
loss having regard to the savings which will accrue to
the Council on account of the revised arrangement. In
previous similar cases the Court has recommended
substantially in excess of half the loss (details
supplied to the Court).
(c) In addition, compensation is also sought in respect of
the worker's loss of seniority for refuse crews. This
is due to the fact that were it not for the frustration
of his agreement with management, brought about by the
re-organisation of work at Balgriffin, the worker would
now be a regular binman. He would thus enjoy an
additional #5 per week and eighteen additional days pay
per year due to public holiday overtime. This would
amount to a total of #773 p.a.
Council's arguments:
4. (i) The worker concerned would have been aware that the
overtime associated with the work on which he was
engaged would not last indefinitely.
(ii) Since the worker was re-assigned to other duties he has
worked overtime, and by the year ending 1986 the loss
of overtime earnings, if any, will be minimal (details
supplied to the Court).
(iii) Concession of this claim would undoubtedly lead to
repercussive claims from other employees whose overtime
has or will be curtailed. The Council could not
sustain the costs of such claims.
(iv) The worker was not guaranteed regular overtime in this
position at Balgriffin as the question of overtime only
arose having regard to the frequency of burials. Also
the Council does not guarantee regular overtime to any
of its employees.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and
should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86779 THE LABOUR COURT AD11/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 11 0F 1987
Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
CM/16,924 concerning claims for compensation for loss of overtime
and seniority for a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned, was one of three men employed by Dublin
County Council as general operatives engaged in grave digging and
maintenance duties at Balgriffin burial ground. He has been
performing these duties for approximately three and a half years,
one and half years reporting to the environment depot Swords and
two years reporting to the Balgriffin burial ground. In February,
1986, the Balgriffin burial ground was closed except for
maintenance and second burials. All burials now take place in the
near by Fingal cemetary. Balgriffin was the only burial ground
where the Council provided a grave digging service and this was
necessary because of the difficult nature of the terrain. In all
other cemetaries the undertakers provide their own grave digging
service. As the Council no longer provided a grave digging
service the three operatives were re-assigned to alternative
duties. Two of the general operatives subsequently left the
Council's employment. The remaining worker was transferred to
maintenance work on the Council's other burial grounds. The Union
on behalf of the worker claimed compensation for loss of overtime
due to the reorganisation (as he used to work overtime on three
out of every four Saturdays), and in addition compensation in
respect of loss of seniority for refuse crews. These claims were
rejected by the Council. The matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th
August, 1986, the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation:
"The overtime was regular enough to have the status of being
rostered but it must have been evident to him that it could
not continue indefinitely. There is no assurance that
overtime in the future will reach anything near its
previous level but nonetheless his losses will be reduced
by it to a fair degree. I believe that he should get some
compensation so I recommend half his annual loss, that is
the Council should concede a sum of #750.
The Council cannot be held accountable for any loss in
seniority on refuse crews."
Both parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 13th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned would not have agreed to report to
Balgriffin had he known that the overtime arrangement
was to be discontinued. The depot at Swords was more
convenient to him and he bought a car when he was
transferred to Balgriffin so that he could travel to
work.
(b) The claim for compensation is based on twice the annual
loss having regard to the savings which will accrue to
the Council on account of the revised arrangement. In
previous similar cases the Court has recommended
substantially in excess of half the loss (details
supplied to the Court).
(c) In addition, compensation is also sought in respect of
the worker's loss of seniority for refuse crews. This
is due to the fact that were it not for the frustration
of his agreement with management, brought about by the
re-organisation of work at Balgriffin, the worker would
now be a regular binman. He would thus enjoy an
additional #5 per week and eighteen additional days pay
per year due to public holiday overtime. This would
amount to a total of #773 p.a.
Council's arguments:
4. (i) The worker concerned would have been aware that the
overtime associated with the work on which he was
engaged would not last indefinitely.
(ii) Since the worker was re-assigned to other duties he has
worked overtime, and by the year ending 1986 the loss
of overtime earnings, if any, will be minimal (details
supplied to the Court).
(iii) Concession of this claim would undoubtedly lead to
repercussive claims from other employees whose overtime
has or will be curtailed. The Council could not
sustain the costs of such claims.
(iv) The worker was not guaranteed regular overtime in this
position at Balgriffin as the question of overtime only
arose having regard to the frequency of burials. Also
the Council does not guarantee regular overtime to any
of its employees.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and
should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.