Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8831 Case Number: LCR11744 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION |
Claim, on behalf of three workers, for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that a clear distinction must be made
in this case. The hours in question were not lost as a result of
the cut-backs, insofar as were it not for the introduction of
mechanisation these hours would still have to be worked. The
Court therefore is of the opinion that in respect of the early
starting hours worked Monday to Friday during the period at issue
that the two present employees concerned should be compensated to
the extent of one year's loss and the retired worker to an amount
equal to half that sum.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8831 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11744
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of three workers, for compensation for loss
of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are plumbers/fitters; one is a member
of the N.E.E.T.U. while two are members of the E.E.T.P.U. Prior
to May, 1986, central heating pumps at Leinster House were
manually operated. This required the claimants to work one hour
each morning Monday to Saturday, for approximately seven months of
the year, at double time since it was an early start. A further
four hours at time and a half was worked on Saturdays. In May,
1986 the system was automated which eliminated the need for the
overtime. The Unions sought compensation for loss of earnings.
It is estimated that the annual loss is #700 and the Unions sought
twice the annual loss i.e. #1,400 in the case of two of the
workers. The third worker retired in April, 1987 and in his case
the actual loss, i.e. one season's earnings were sought. The
Office of Public Works rejected the claim. The matter was
referred, on 23rd September, 1987, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 12th January, 1988 and the matter was referred
to a full Court hearing. The hearing took place on 26th February,
1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions consider their claim to be very reasonable in
that compensation on a once-off basis is sought.
2. The Unions identified the need for the new technology
which eliminated the need for manual operation. The need for
public sector employees to keep abrest of technological
developments was also acknowledged. The new equipment has
meant a considerable reduction in overhead costs. Staffing
levels have been reduced.
3. There is a very substantial increase in productivity which
has put the remaining workforce under considerable pressure.
The Unions consider it unacceptable that a loss in pay should
be experienced at the same time as increased pressure of work.
3. 4. The Unions are aware of the current economic climate but,
nevertheless, consider their claim to be justifiable.
5. One of the claimants transferred from the Botanic gardens
to Leinster House. His previous position offered a more
attractive environment etc. His decision to move was partly
influenced by the extra earnings at Leinster House which he
has now lost.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Office of Public Works has been very severely affected
by the Government cutbacks. These cutbacks were reflected in
the allocation to the central building maintenance workshop
where there are 410 industrial workers employed. The
allocation for 1988 is #5.13m. which is #1/4m. below the
allocation for 1987 which in turn was marginally higher than
that for 1986. It can be seen, therefore, that, not only has
there been no provision made for pay increases during 1987/88
but, in fact, there has been a substantial reduction in the
overall allocation over a three year period. If the workshop
is to remain within its allocation for 1988 it must achieve 35
voluntary redundancies or, alternatively, introduce short time
working or perhaps a combination of both. There is no
possibility of additional monies being made available by the
Government. In an effort to cut down on costs, the Controller
reduced overtime working over the past 3/4 years for all
employees based at the workshop. The following shows overtime
working as a percentage of the overall wage bill between 1984
and 1987 as well as the percentage drop in overtime worked
during the same period.
1983/84 24% of wage bill
1984/85 19.5% of wage bill 23% decrease on 1983/84 figure
1986 12.1% of wage bill 49% decrease on 1983/84 figure
1987 10.6% of wage bill 55.8% decrease on 1983/84 figure
2. The following illustrates the overtime working of the two
serving employees involved in this claim over roughly the same
period.
Worker A 1983/84 383.75 hours Overtime hours worked
1984/85 515.5 hours Overtime hours worked
1985/86 494 hours Decrease of 4% compared to
1984/85
* 1986/87 279 hours Decrease of 45% compared to
1984/85
1987/88 to 178.25 hours
date
Worker B 1983/84 317.5 hours Overtime hours worked
1984/85 348 hours Overtime hours worked
1985/86 279.5 hours Decrease of 19.7% compared
to 1984/85
* 1986/87 69.5 hours Decrease of 80% compared to
1984/85
Worker B transferred voluntarily to another area where
there are fewer overtime opportunities.
* This period was post automation.
It can be seen from the foregoing details that these workers
are no more severely affected by the cut backs than the
majority of other workers based at the Workshop.
3. In rejecting the claim, the Office was aware of the
changing trends in both the public and private sectors in
responding to claims for compensation for loss of earnings.
It noted that the economic circumstances of the employer is
regarded more and more as the determining factor rather than
the potential loss of earnings of any employee or group of
employees. This trend is particularly noticeable in cases
where the payment of compensation would impair trading
opportunities or result in job losses. The Office took
particular note of the extent to which the Court itself had
regard to the trading and economic difficulties of the
employers in making recommendations.
4. Concession of this claim could have serious repercussive
effects in that it could give rise to further claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that a clear distinction must be made
in this case. The hours in question were not lost as a result of
the cut-backs, insofar as were it not for the introduction of
mechanisation these hours would still have to be worked. The
Court therefore is of the opinion that in respect of the early
starting hours worked Monday to Friday during the period at issue
that the two present employees concerned should be compensated to
the extent of one year's loss and the retired worker to an amount
equal to half that sum.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
16th March, 1988. Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.