Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87645 Case Number: LCR11464 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - NUW&WM |
Claim for compensation for loss of overtime and updating of an allowance.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the fact that the change to an inherently
less efficient system of working has been brought about by the
current financial difficulties of the Corporation, the Court does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim for compensation for
loss of the overtime involved and in the circumstances does not
recommend concession of the claim for an amendment of the daily
allowance.
The Court is of the opinion that more direct consultation with
those immediately affected by the proposed changes would be in the
interest of better industrial relations.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87645 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11464
CC87960 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11464
Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
NATIONAL UNION OF WOODWORKERS AND WOODCUTTING MACHINISTS
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of overtime and updating of an
allowance.
Background:
2. The claim concerns approximately 14 carpenters employed by the
Corporation in its housing maintenance section. In 1974 an
agreement was concluded under which the erection and dismantling
of scaffolding, which had up to then been done by general workers,
would be done by craftsmen. In 1978 it was agreed that the
craftsmen using the scaffolding would be paid an allowance. Since
1979 in addition to the allowance, which has remained at 50 pence
per day, the craftsmen involved on scaffolding have been paid a
half hour overtime each morning and evening to permit the erection
and dismantling of scaffolding outside of normal working hours.
In May, 1987 the Corporation discontinued the overtime arrangement
in view of its financial situation and decided that the erection
and dismantling of scaffolding would be done as part of the normal
working day. The Union claimed the restoration of the overtime in
accordance with the agreement reached in 1979. The Corporation
rejected the claim due to its financial position.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
17th June, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 11th August, 1987 but no agreement was reached. On 24th
August, 1987 the case was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 17th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Since 1st March, 1979, on the introduction of this
model of scaffolding, one hour per day overtime was
agreed and paid. The Union understood that this was
structured overtime which never changed. It was an
inducement to the carpenters to handle work which was
never their duty, but proper to another category of
worker.
(ii) The workers have adapted to this overtime as normal
earnings and its withdrawal has created hardship. For
the Corporation to withdraw this overtime at short
notice shows a lack of understanding and consideration
on such a sensitive matter.
(iii) In the circumstances the workers should be compensated
for loss of earnings. There should also be a return to
the use of ladders and the scaffolding work should be
done by the proper category of worker for this type of
work.
(iv) There was no increase sought in the allowance because
the overtime payment had been increased in line with
salary each year. However since the overtime has been
stopped the value of the allowance does not seem
appropriate. This allowance should be linked to the
cost of living index to keep the value in perspective.
The allowance should be #1.20 per day at present.
(v) Many recommendations in favour of compensation have
been made by the Labour Court where structured overtime
has been stopped.
Corporation's arguments:
5. (a) Since 1982 there has been a continuing reduction in the
domestic rate grant paid to the Corporation from
central Government funds. In addition the estimates
adopted for the Corporation for 1987 were reduced to
such an extent that it has been necessary to cease all
overtime working throughout the various sections of the
Corporation, including the overtime which is the
subject of this claim.
(b) The Corporation's present financial position has lead
to a reduction in the level of service provided and is
placing in jeopardy the maintenance of the existing
workforce. The Corporation must reduce or eliminate
unnecessary expenditure in every possible area in order
to avoid any further run down of services and lay-off
of staff. In the present financial circumstances it is
not possible for the Corporation to reinstate the
overtime working or to pay compensation for loss of
overtime.
(c) The Corporation is aware that the effect of the
abolition of the overtime has been that the level of
productive working time as a percentage of the total
working time is less than when the overtime was worked.
However, it cannot afford to alter that situation
within its present financial resources.
(d) It is not acceptable to the Corporation that the Union
should seek to depart from the arrangement whereby
its members are required to erect and dismantle
scaffolding and are paid an allowance for the skill
involved.
(e) The claim for an increase in the allowance is not
sustainable because this allowance and all other such
allowances were due to be subsumed in the national
scale for tradesmen when those scales were instituted
in 1979. Indeed the existing allowance should not be
paid. In addition the Government has directed public
service employers not to pay any special increases not
already approved or to grant any improvements in
conditions of employment.
(f) The claim for compensation for loss of overtime must be
rejected due to the Corporation's present dire
financial position. Many previous similar claims have
been rejected by the Labour Court where the reason for
the overtime cutbacks was the employer's poor financial
position.
(g) It is not acceptable that the workers be permitted to
discontinue using scaffolding and return to the use of
ladders because, the Union agreed to co-operate in
measures to promote flexibility, the carpenters are
paid the allowance for the skill involved and it has
been a condition of wage rounds that they would
co-operate in measures to promote ongoing efficiency
and effectiveness.
(h) At a time when the Corporation is in dire financial
circumstances and when its human and material resources
must be utilised as efficiently and as effectively as
possible the Union is seeking that the Corporation
permit the use of far less efficient working methods.
The Corporation cannot accept such a negative and
regressive change in the established work practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the fact that the change to an inherently
less efficient system of working has been brought about by the
current financial difficulties of the Corporation, the Court does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim for compensation for
loss of the overtime involved and in the circumstances does not
recommend concession of the claim for an amendment of the daily
allowance.
The Court is of the opinion that more direct consultation with
those immediately affected by the proposed changes would be in the
interest of better industrial relations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
14th October, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.