Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8863 Case Number: LCR11834 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 29 general attendants for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
7. In light of the submissions made by the parties and of the
information supplied, the Court is not satisfied that any clear
basis exists to ascertain losses which would justify a claim for
compensation insofar as the variations in overtime over the period
may partly be attributable to absenteeism and partly to cuts in
College expenditure, imposed as a result of the present economic
circumstances. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8863 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11834
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 29 general attendants for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1985, a dispute arose as a result of the College's decision
to implement revised working rosters for the general attendants.
The Union contended that the College's proposals would result in a
loss of overtime to the workers, an increase in week-end working,
an adverse effect in security at the College thus increasing
personal risk to the attendants and a reduction in the number of
workers by the College. The dispute was investigated by the
Labour Court on 4th September, 1985, and on 24th October, 1985,
the following recommendation was issued.
"The Court, having regard to the fact that the overtime likely
to be lost on the introduction of proposed roster is largely
incidental and to a degree caused by absenteeism does not
accept the Union's claim as valid.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the new rosters be
introduced as soon as may be and that discussions take place
six months thereafter when the level of actual losses has
been ascertained to consider the possibility of compensation
by means of lump sum payments." (L.C.R. 10,055).
3. When the parties met to discuss the actual losses incurred by
the general attendants the Union claimed that on the basis of a
points system which the supervisors use to ensure that overtime is
allocated fairly, losses ranging from #350 to #600 had been
incurred between January and July, 1986. The Union contended that
the points system showed a drop of over 25% in overtime worked
between 1985 and 1986. The College argued that overtime averaged
20.2% of basic pay over the 4 year period 1982-86, 19.6% for 1986,
the year under review, and that in 1985, the year proceeding the
roster change, it was 23.6% i.e. 3.4% above average. Therefore,
having regard to this evidence, the College's financial position
and absenteeism as a contributory factor in overtime, the College
rejected the claim.
4. On 23rd April, 1987, the issue was referred to the
conciliation services of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences were held on 26th May, 3rd June, and 16th December,
1987. At the 3rd conference the College, in response to a request
from the Union, produced comparative figures for the actual hours
worked.
December, '84 - '85 6902 hours.
December, '85 - '86 4918 hours.
As no agreement was reached the matter was referred on 22nd
January, 1988, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 29th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The overtime was regular and recurring and it arose
directly out of the functioning of the roster itself. There
was, and there continues to be, a set pattern to it dictated
by the nature of the services provided by general attendants.
The College's claim that the overtime is casual is wrong
because the roster is the mechanism by which general services
and security are provided in the College. It is designed to
provide a predetermined level of service and security to
specific areas. Thus when a gap arises on the roster it is
filled so as to maintain the determined level of service in
the area concerned. It is only if a decision were taken to
reduce or eliminate service to a particular area would a
replacement not be made on the roster. In the course of 1986,
the period in question, no such decisions were made.
5. 2. The records of the points system for allocating overtime
show a consistent pattern from year to year with only minor
variations. The shortfall from 1985 to 1986 is far greater
than these variations and is due to the fact that spare
capacity on the 29th man roster obviated the need for
replacement by an off duty attendant to the degree illustrated
by the comparative figures of overtime hours.
5. 3. The College has made substantial savings since 1984 as a
result of changes of roster vis: the cost of 5 general
attendant posts i.e. #53,000 per annum. It is only reasonable
that some level of this saving should be passed on to the
attendants in return for their co-operation with these changes
and as compensation for their loss.
5. 4. The loss to the attendants is substantial. The difference
in total hours over the two years is 1984 hours which divided
by 29 in accordance with the points system is equal to an
average of 1.32 hours per week, per attendant. As there were
three phases of the 25th Pay Round during 1986, the loss per
week fluctuates between #5.72 and #6.00 or up to over #300 per
annum. The normal compensation sought for losses of this kind
is 1.5 times the annual loss.
5. 5. The College has already paid compensation for loss of
overtime, the most recent being to 4 departmental operatives
in the Boole Library, amounting to #10,000 between the 4
operatives, (details provided to the Court). The total cost
of 1.5 times the weekly loss to the 29 attendants would be a
once-off payment of #13,000, measured against an annual saving
of #53,000 as a result of staff reductions and roster changes.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union's case that a substantial loss of overtime would
result from the new roster arrangement has not been borne out.
The pattern that emerges substantiate's the College's view
that there is no standard or rostered overtime for this group
and that the level of overtime depends mainly on the level of
absenteeism and the amount of cover which the College decides
to provide for that.
6. 2. The College's records show that absenteeism rates for the
attendant group during 1986 fell by 23% in the March quarter,
21% in the June quarter, 44% in the September quarter and 11%
in the December quarter, over the same periods in 1985. In
total there were lost 141 man-days less in 1986 over 1985.
This factor alone, therefore, could account for the recorded
reduction of 1984 hours between 1985 and 1986, as 141 days
overtime at double time comes to 2256 hours.
6. 3. The patterns of overtime change for many reasons and the
Union's claim endeavours to perpetuate an earlier pattern of
overtime, which in itself was a product of different
circumstances. The global figures on overtime over a
four-year period confirm that variations do occur.
6. 4. The College devised the new roster arrangement to meet the
public service requirement at that time - to replace only one
in three vacancies that arose, and to achieve this end reduced
the service in a particular area and streamlined the
operation. The roster, therefore, represents a response to
changed staffing arrangements and the serious deficit in the
College's finances.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In light of the submissions made by the parties and of the
information supplied, the Court is not satisfied that any clear
basis exists to ascertain losses which would justify a claim for
compensation insofar as the variations in overtime over the period
may partly be attributable to absenteeism and partly to cuts in
College expenditure, imposed as a result of the present economic
circumstances. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
28th April, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.