Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88688 Case Number: LCR12149 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of ten workers in the Council's refuse service for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking into account the fact that the overtime worked was
regular and compulsory, recommends payment of a sum of #500
(gross) to each of the claimants in respect of the year 1988 and a
further #500 (gross) for the year 1989, the above amounts to be
paid in December 1988 and 1989.
The above payments to be in full and final settlement of the
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88688 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12149
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of ten workers in the Council's refuse service
for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mayo County Council introduced service charges a number of
years ago. Because a number of households refused to pay the
charges, the Council decided to introduce a labelling system in
March, 1988. Those who paid the charges were given labels to put
on their refuse and the workers were instructed to collect only
that refuse. As a result, there was a reduction in the number of
households from whom refuse was collected which in turn led to a
reduction in the claimants' overtime earnings. The Union has put
this loss at an average #50 per person per week and lodged a claim
for compensation. This was rejected by the Council and on the 4th
July, 1988, the issue was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference in Castlebar on the 1st September and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held in Castlebar on the 15th November, 1988
(earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The claimants have lost, on average, #50 per person per week
as a result of the instruction to collect only refuse that
was labelled. It has always been a condition of their
employment that they be available for overtime and anyone who
was not prepared to work it was removed from the refuse
service. Furthermore, many of the workers concerned had
taken out mortgages on the strength and reliability of their
overtime.
3.2 This year the Council has collected more money for refuse
than ever before. In fact, some people who want to get
labels and who want to pay the service charge have not even
been invoiced by the Council and it is the Union's view that
the general public are willing to pay the service charges
provided the Council goes out and collects them.
3.3 The Union has advised the Council that if the claim is not
satisfactorily resolved, the claimants will ignore the
labelled bags and collect all refuse. The compensation being
sought is two and a half times the annual loss.
3.4 The Labour Court has in the past recommended compensation for
loss of overtime payments in similar cases (details
supplied).
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The claimants do not have a statutory right to overtime and
it is not a condition of their employment that they get
overtime.
4.2 The payment of compensation for the reduction in overtime
earnings would be at variance with the Council's efforts to
reduce costs, having regard to the amount of funds available
to the Council.
4.3 The constraints on public expenditure have made it necessary
for the Council to examine other ways of reducing costs and
the voluntary redundancy package has been made available to a
significant number of employees.
4.4 In accordance with an agreement signed by the Unions in 1979
for general operatives, the Union agreed that the level of
overtime to be worked - if any - shall be decided from time
to time by the Council.
4.5 The Council have to maintain the principle that payment can
only be made for overtime where the working of this overtime
is considered necessary to carry out the job and it has been
approved in advance.
4.6 The concession of this claim would have repercussive effects
for the Council - and indeed, for other local authorities.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking into account the fact that the overtime worked was
regular and compulsory, recommends payment of a sum of #500
(gross) to each of the claimants in respect of the year 1988 and a
further #500 (gross) for the year 1989, the above amounts to be
paid in December 1988 and 1989.
The above payments to be in full and final settlement of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st December, 1988 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman