Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86829 Case Number: LCR10927 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CITY OF DUBLIN VEC - and - ITGWU;IMETU;GROUP OF UNIONS |
Claim, on behalf of 10 building craftsmen and general operatives for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86829 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10927
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10927
PARTIES: CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
COMMITTEE (CDVEC)
AND
V.E.C. GROUP OF UNIONS
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of 10 building craftsmen and general
operatives for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Background:
2. During the period from May to August 1985, the ten workers
concerned did not work Saturday overtime. Prior to and following
this period they worked overtime on a reasonably regular basis.
At that time a dispute existed between the Local Government and
Public Services Union (LGPSU) (representing supervisory grades)
and the CDVEC. The assistant building supervisor in charge of the
workers here concerned did not authorise any overtime or sign
overtime sheets during the period concerned. The Unions contends
that the reason for this was the dispute which existed between his
union and the CDVEC. Management rejects this allegation. The
Unions sought compensation of the order of #1,080 per individual
(#3 per hour for 360 hours). The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 18th July, 1986. A
conciliation conference held on 9th October, 1986, the earliest
date suitable to the parties, failed to resolve the issue and it
was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing
took place on 11th December, 1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) The reason for the loss of earnings arose because of
the dispute between the assistant building
supervisors' union and the CDVEC which resulted in a
refusal by the supervisor to sanction overtime. It
was not because there was no need for overtime or for
any economic reasons.
(ii) Workers under other supervisors were not affected in
this way.
(iii) The Unions are claiming compensation of #1,080 per
person.
Management's arguments:
4. (a) No overtime was recommended by the supervisor during
the period in question and therefore no overtime was
worked by the members concerned. Unlike many other
areas in the public sector overtime is available to all
members of the buildings maintenance staff on a
reasonably regular basis but only when deemed necessary
and properly authorised. It is accepted by the Unions
that maintenance staff are not automatically entitled
to overtime.
(b) The Unions claimed that their members were caught in a
"cross fire" between the CDVEC and the LGPSU. It was
pointed out to the Unions that there was no dispute
with the LGPSU on the substantive issue of overtime and
its authorisation, and that where overtime was deemed
necessary and properly authorised it would be paid for.
(c) At a time of severe cutbacks in the education area
which directly affect vital teaching resources, to
compensate staff for a short period of time during
which overtime was not available because it was not
recommended, is not feasible.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__20th__January,__1987. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman