Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88526 Case Number: LCR11953 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Unions for compensation for losses incurred arising from the conversion of a heating system. (Overtime, shift allowance, and two days annual leave).
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that this case should be seen in a similar
light as applied in the case of L.C.R. 11744. The Court
recommends that the five claimants be formally offered the terms
of the voluntary redundancy package. Those who do not accept it
should be offered and accept a lump sum equivalent to one years
loss of regular overtime and shift earnings payable when the new
roster is introduced i.e. 1st April, 1989 or later. The Court
does not recommend concession of the claim for retention of the
two extra days holidays.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88526 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11953
CC881947
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for compensation for losses incurred
arising from the conversion of a heating system. (Overtime, shift
allowance, and two days annual leave).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Office of Public Works (O.P.W.) are converting the heating
system at Government Buildings, Dublin from solid fuel to natural
gas. At present there are five stokers employed on the system,
but this will be reduced to two when the new system becomes
operative. The new arrangement will entail the loss of shift
allowances and a substantial amount of overtime for the two
remaining stokers. The three who go will lose their shift
allowance and all over-time. The O.P.W. proposes to retain these
three stokers in employment as general operatives, allowing them
to retain the stoker's rate of pay which is £13 per week greater
than the general operative's rate. Stokers currently enjoy two
days annual leave more than the general workforce because they
work shift. Following the changeover, the O.P.W. proposes to
withdraw these extra days leave. The unions on behalf of the
workers served the following claims on the O.P.W.
(i) That the loss of structural overtime be compensated for
by the payment of £15,500 per worker.
(ii) That the workers be allowed to retain their shift rate
on a personal basis.
(iii) That the workers be allowed to retain the two extra days
leave per annum.
The O.P.W. acknowledges that there will be losses to the workers
resulting from the conversion but contends that the unions'
demands are unrealistic. Agreement could not be reached at local
level and, on 5th July, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 7th July, 1988. No agreement was reached
and, on 8th July, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on 11th July, 1988. The Court's recommendation
was issued by letter to the parties on 14th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new heating system will involve considerable savings
for the O.P.W.. The losses to the workers, on the other hand,
will be very substantial. The workers have for many years
based their expectations and life-style on their current level
of earnings. All the workers have given long and faithful
service and it is only just that they be adequately
compensated.
2. At present when the employees go on holidays they receive
their basic pay plus the shift rate at time and one quarter.
The unions contend that this should be retained by the
workers, as should the two extra days annual leave.
3. A serious concern for the unions is the effect that the
loss of earnings will have on the pension entitlements of the
workers concerned, particularly as some of them are now
approaching retirement age.
4. Given the level of gains to the O.P.W. including savings
and increased productivity coupled with the long service of
the workers concerned, the unions are convinced that the case
for the workers is very strong. The Court is respectfully
requested to recommend in favour of the unions' claims.
O.P.W.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The O.P.W. accepts that there will be losses to the
workers involved following the conversion to the new system of
heating. It is imperative however, that compensation be kept
at a reasonable and realistic level.
2. A number of points in favour of the O.P.W. have to be
taken into account when considering compensation.
(a) the workers concerned are being retained in employment,
at a time when public service numbers are contracting,
(b) the men redeployed as general operatives will retain the
higher stokers rate of pay,
(c) for the remaining stokers there will still be
opportunities to earn substantial overtime following
conversion to the new system.
3. There will be a substantial period of "lead-in" time
following conversion during which the existing hours of
attendance will remain unaltered.
4. The workers' colleagues in the central building
maintenance workshop have had to accept a steady decline in
their overtime earnings over the past number of years. There
is no justification for making a special exception of the
stokers.
5. The financial position of the O.P.W. is very difficult.
The pay allocation for the central building maintenance
workshops has been reduced and there is no provision for
increases. Since 1984 strenuous efforts have been made to
reduce overtime working as a percentage of the overall wage
bill (details supplied to the Court). Any compensation
payments would have to be met out of the already depleted
allocation for wages. Cuts have been necessary in all aspects
of the O.P.W's operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that this case should be seen in a similar
light as applied in the case of L.C.R. 11744. The Court
recommends that the five claimants be formally offered the terms
of the voluntary redundancy package. Those who do not accept it
should be offered and accept a lump sum equivalent to one years
loss of regular overtime and shift earnings payable when the new
roster is introduced i.e. 1st April, 1989 or later. The Court
does not recommend concession of the claim for retention of the
two extra days holidays.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
28th July, 1988. Chairman
P.F./J.C.