Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88137 Case Number: LCR11943 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one supervisory gardener for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim for loss of the payment.
However, in view of the particular nature of the payment, the
Court recommends that when the Corporation's financial situation
improves that the payment should be restored.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88137 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11943
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one supervisory gardener for compensation
for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. For many years the supervisory gardener in Herbert Park has
been required by the Corporation to undertake store duties since
no store keeper was employed at the store there. The present
incumbent of the post of supervisory gardener has held it since
1967. He has always been in receipt of a payment of six hours
overtime weekly at time plus a half. At the Court hearing a
disagreement arose as to whether he actually worked an additional
six hours beyond the normal working week. The Union stated that
he did not, that the additional payment was "an allowance" for
store duties. Management stated that he was expected to work six
hours overtime due to his additional duties. The payment amounted
to £40.32 per week or £2,096.44 per annum. On 5th September,
1987, this payment was discontinued. The Union sought
compensation for this loss but this was rejected by the
Corporation. On 6th January, 1988 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement being
reached at a conciliation conference held on 19th February, 1988,
the matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 21st March, 1988. The Court requested
clarification from the Corporation as to whether the extra hours
were actually worked. On 25th April, 1988, the Corporation wrote
to the Court setting out the actual position. The supervisory
gardener was instructed, in the mid-1960s to work six hours
overtime per week performing store duties. The instruction was
not repeated and it was assumed by the Corporation that the
overtime was being worked. The worker's time sheet was completed
by himself and returned to the timekeeper at Herbert Park from
which the wages sheet was prepared by the timekeeper and signed by
the worker's superiors. The supervisory gardener was not,
however, actually working six hours overtime.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was in receipt of an amount equivalent to six
hours overtime per week. He did not work such overtime. The
payment constituted part of his conditions of employment and
was in return for the performance of store duties which are
outside the normal duties of a supervisory gardener. The
payment was similar in nature to an allowance.
2. Had the worker not carried out the store duties over the
years, the Corporation would have had to employ a store keeper
at considerable cost.
3. The Union is seeking compensation of one and a half times
the annual loss, a sum of £3,144.96.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation's financial position has deteriorated
significantly since 1983 and the position in 1987 was
extremely serious. Following the abolition of rates, the
Government initially made good the full loss to the
Corporation. However, the amount paid has been very
significantly reduced between 1983 and 1988.
2. The Financial Estimates adopted in 1987 represented a
significant reduction on the draft estimates which in turn
were a significant reduction on the amounts requested by the
Heads of Departments. Three reductions resulted in various
cutbacks, including the elimination of practically all
overtime. The supervisory gardener here concerned was one of
those whose overtime was eliminated in these circumstances.
The Corporation was also forced to terminate the employment of
nine temporary officers and could not offer employment to
newly qualified tradesmen who had completed a satisfactory
apprenticeship.
3. The financial position in 1988 is such that, again,
expenditure must be reduced in all possible areas (details
supplied). 370 staff have left under the Voluntary
Redundancy/Early Retirement Scheme. Employment must be
treated as a higher priority than retention of overtime. The
Corporation cannot therefore pay compensation in this
particular case.
4. The implementation of decisions in relation to elimination
of overtime were within the context of discussions and
correspondence with the Trade Unions. It was stated in
writing that claims for compensation for loss of overtime
would not be conceded.
5. Many other similar claims have been rejected by the Court
due to the financial position of the employer.
4. 6. The Corporation considers that concession of this claim
could have serious repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim for loss of the payment.
However, in view of the particular nature of the payment, the
Court recommends that when the Corporation's financial situation
improves that the payment should be restored.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___12th___July,____1988. __________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman