Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88164 Case Number: LCR11824 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of one library porter for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court is
satisfied that the losses to the porter concerned arise directly
from current restrictions on public expenditure. The Court
therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88164 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11824
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1987
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORK CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of one library porter for
compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed as a porter since the
branch opened on 2nd November, 1984. The hours of duty were as
follows:
(i) Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday : 8.30-1.00; 2.30-5.30
(ii) Thursday, Friday, : 8.30-1.00; 2.30-8.00
The Friday hours were deemed to balance out the extra lunchtime
hours and to make up the normal 40 hour week. The Thursday night
hours were to be paid as overtime i.e. 2.5 hours at time plus one
half. In late 1987, due to financial restrictions and the
Government embargo on staff recruitment, the Corporation reduced
the level of service by reducing the opening hours generally
throughout the library service. As a result evening opening in
the branch on Thursdays was discontinued and the worker concerned
lost the 2.5 hours overtime. The Union lodged a claim for
compensation for the loss of overtime earnings, however, this was
rejected by the Corporation. The dispute was referred on 19th
January, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
As no agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on
9th February, 1988, to the Labour Court, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 29th March, 1988,
in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When established the job included 2.5 hours overtime per
week as an integral element. It was a condition of employment
and he was obliged to work it. The cut in overtime has
reduced his earnings by £14.40 per week. His standard of
living has been severely eroded.
3. 2. Because of the 1.5 hour lunch break the total spread of
duty was 50 hours per week. It was the overtime which made
working these hours worthwhile. Indeed the total extra over
the general workers' scale for the job is only 70p per week
more than if the extra hours in the spread over duty were
actually paid for.
3. The Corporation has in the past paid compensation for loss
of overtime earnings on foot of previous Labour Court
Recommendations. The most recent award was for 39 times the
weekly loss (L.C.R. 11436). The worker concerned would accept
a similar award. The cost of the claim is a mere £461, which
is small in the light of the savings the Corporation will make
annually, the Corporation's annual budget of £80m and indeed
in the light of the worker's personal loss.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been a severe reduction in the level of service
from the position some years ago where all libraries were open
till 8.00 p.m. on 4 nights per week. Staffing reductions of
some 25% enforced through the Government embargo has made such
reductions inevitable. Existing staffing resources are
stretched to the limit. There is no real saving to the
Corporation, the general public being the real losers.
2. The decision to introduce the measure arose specifically
out of the current financial restrictions imposed by
Government on Public Service expenditure generally and over
which the Corporation has no real control.
3. In the context of major job losses within the Corporation
and significant reduction in overtime levels generally the
City Manager feels that payment of compensation for any such
loss would be singularly inappropriate and have widespread
repercussive effects. The Court has been consistent in its
view that overtime reductions arising directly out of the
Government cut backs have not been the subject of compensation
awards.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court is
satisfied that the losses to the porter concerned arise directly
from current restrictions on public expenditure. The Court
therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
27th April, 1988. Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.