Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88116 Case Number: LCR11868 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CLONMEL CORPORATION - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 12 workers for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
8. While the Court has noted that a number of the claimants will
incur considerable losses of overtime earnings due to the
curtailment of services, nevertheless the Court does not find it
possible to recommend concession of the claim in view of the
severe financial constraints on the Corporation at this time.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88116 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11868
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CLONMEL CORPORATION
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 12 workers for compensation
for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Overtime has been worked on a regular basis for a number of
years past in the areas of -
(a) public toilet maintenance,
(b) cemetery maintenance and
(c) refuse collection/street sweeping.
3. In September, 1986, the maintenance of the public toilets was
re-organised in a manner which eliminated the necessity for
overtime. In 1988, the cemetery maintenance and refuse
collection/street sweeping operations were similarly re-organised.
4. The Union claimed compensation for loss of overtime earnings
on behalf of the workers concerned on the basis that the overtime
was regular and rostered. The Union quantified the claim as the
amount the workers would have earned on overtime had they worked
overtime up to the date of their respective retirements. (Details
supplied to the Court). The Corporation rejected the claim.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 19th October, 1987. Conciliation Conferences were
held on 25th November, 1987, and 11th February, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties agreed to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Clonmel on the 19th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned have worked the overtime which was
regular and rostered for periods ranging from six to twenty
years. The decision to eliminate the overtime has resulted
in drastic losses for the workers concerned. (Details
supplied to the Court).
2. The workers now find themselves in a serious financial
situation as a result of the cut-backs. Their living
standards have declined considerably with little prospect of
any improvement in the immediate future.
3. The workers had worked the overtime over a long number of
years and had a reasonable expectation that they would
continue to enjoy it well into the future. Consequently
their living standards reflected their earnings.
Compensation, if paid, would help them re-adjust to the
serious situation in which they now find themselves.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Over the past three years in particular the Corporation
has been faced with increasingly serious shortages in finance
due to reductions in real terms of Government grants (details
supplied to the Court). In addition the Corporation's
ability to increase revenue is very limited (details supplied
to the Court).
2. The maintenance of full-time employment for employees and
the avoidance of lay offs or compulsory redundancies is a
priority with the Corporation. It is obvious that this
cannot be done without effecting economies in the
Corporation's operations and the most obvious area for
economies is the elimination of overtime except in emergency
situations and the Union accepts this. In fact it is
acknowledged that the A.T.G.W.U. has co-operated in the
re-organisation of the Corporation's services in the present
restricted financial situation.
3. Apart from the service mentioned above overtime has been
eliminated also in the other service areas - housing, water,
sewerage etc., and while the savings achieved in this area
and in consequence of the Voluntary Redundancy/Early
Retirement Scheme will account only for part of the shortfall
it is hoped to achieve savings in materials and machinery to
bridge the gap. The Corporation is prohibited from spending
in excess of budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. While the Court has noted that a number of the claimants will
incur considerable losses of overtime earnings due to the
curtailment of services, nevertheless the Court does not find it
possible to recommend concession of the claim in view of the
severe financial constraints on the Corporation at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th May, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman