Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87889 Case Number: LCR11659 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances, and having regard to the terms of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 11396, the Court recommends that
compensation of #150 be paid.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87889 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11659
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed as a relief attendant in the
public toilet service since 1983 covering for annual and sick
leave absences of permanent attendants. Originally the toilet
service in the borough consisted of 18 toilets and 14 staff. In
1985, the service was rationalised and the revised staffing level
was 11. The worker was on a panel with a view to appointment as a
full time attendant but as a result of the rationalisation, he
lost his position on this panel. He continued to act as relief
attendant. The Union sought compensation and this claim was
considered by the Labour Court. In Labour Court recommendation
No. 10475 the Court stated that the outcome of the Corporation's
further rationalisation proposals should be awaited before the
claim could be considered. Further rationalisation reduced the
number of toilet attendants to four permanent and three relief
with effect from 7th September, 1987. The worker reverted to a
full time position as a general attendant in the maintenance
section with no opportunity to act a relief toilet attendant. The
Union, on his behalf, sought compensation of twice his annual
loss, a figure of #2747.30 based on figures as set out below.
Toilet Attendant Maintenance
Basic pay #148.04 Basic pay #148.04
Differential Differential
(toilet att.) # 6.12 (dirty money) # 4.18
Shift Premium # 19.27 Shift Premium ---
Eating on site Eating on site
Allowance (6 days) # 6.78 Allowance (5 days) # 5.65
Travelling allowance Travelling allowance
(6 days) # 26.01 (5 days) # 19.26
#206.22 #177.13
Difference per week: #206.22 - #177.13 = #29.09
Average no. weeks worked per year: 23 X #29.09 = #669.07
Minimum 2 public holidays worked per year at double time (daily
rate #34.37) #34.37 X 2 X 2 = #137.48
Minimum of 11 weeks per year overtime worked of 1 day (6 2/3
hours) per week at time and a half.
#34.37 X 1.50 X 11 = #567.10
Total annual loss (minimum)
#669.07
#137.48
#567.10
_______
#1,373.65 X 2 years =
#2,747.30
_________
_________
No agreement being reached at local level, the matter was
referred, on 2nd October, 1987, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 27th October,
1987, failed to resolve the issue and it was referred to a full
hearing of the Court which took place on 7th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, for a long period of time, regularly received
a higher level of earnings than at present. He expected this
level of earnings to continue and also expected a full time
appointment which would increase his earnings further.
2. Payment of the compensation sought will help the worker in
the initial period of his reduced earnings to adjust to the
loss. He has entered into financial commitments based on his
previous level of earnings.
3. The Union accepts that the Corporation is experiencing
financial difficulties. However, the recession has also
affected the living standards of employees. Precedents exist
for the payment of compensation in cases such as this. Labour
Court Recommendation No. 11396 awarded #500 each to the four
permanent attendants and #300 each to the three part-time
attendants in respect of loss of shift premium and public
holiday working.
4. The savings made by the Corporation as a result of the
reorganisation will be considerable and ongoing. In these
circumstances, compensation should be awarded to the worker
who is suffering a substantial ongoing loss.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation is experiencing severe financial
difficulties and is operating on continuous overdraft
facilities (details supplied). The reorganisation of the
toilet service was necessary in order to correct an
overmanning situation and to operate the service within the
reduced funding available.
2. It is acknowledged that redeployed staff experienced a
loss of earnings because of the shift differential. However,
such staff will not any longer be required to work shift or
any form of unsocial hours.
3. The worker on behalf of whom the present claim is made had
a limited service in the public toilet department. The
Corporation submits that, having regard to the grounds for the
reorganisation, compensation is not warranted in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances, and having regard to the terms of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 11396, the Court recommends that
compensation of #150 be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________
28th January, 1988
A.K./J.C. Chairman