Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88226 Case Number: LCR11880 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of eight workers for compensation for loss of rostered overtime and claim on behalf of 6 workers for compensation for increased flexibility and responsibility.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends as follows -
1. Claim for Loss of Rostered Overtime
The circumstances under which the claimants were required to work
regular rosters over 20 years were exceptional and the Department
appears to have acknowledged merit in the Union's claim in
offering compensation. In all the circumstances of the case the
Court recommends that the Department improves its offer to £1,200
in respect of the 1st Roster and £1,140 for the 2nd Roster.
2. Claim in respect of Increased Flexibility and Responsibility
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88226 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11880
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of eight workers for compensation for loss of
rostered overtime and claim on behalf of 6 workers for
compensation for increased flexibility and responsibility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as civilian crew members in
the Naval Transport Service at Haulbowline. They operate the
ferry boats that provide a service between Cobh and Haulbowline
for civilian employees and service personnel and their families
who are stationed or work at the Military and Naval Bases in Cork
Harbour.
3. About 4 years ago a decision was taken to transfer Spike
Island to the Department of Justice, and when the families of the
staff of the Department of Defence were moved some years later
there was less work for the launches. As a result it was proposed
to introduce new rosters which would eliminate the overtime which
had applied since the service began.
4. The Union claimed compensation for loss of the rostered
overtime and also compensation for the extra duties and
responsibilities which would arise as a result of the revised
rosters and the lay-off of two temporary workers. The claim for
loss of overtime was quantified at five times the annual loss (1st
roster £1,675.44 per year; 2nd roster £1,535.56 per year), and
the claim for increased responsibility quantified at 8.2%.
5. On the claim for loss of overtime the Department offered £800
and £760 respectively and rejected the claim for compensation for
increased responsibilities and extra duties. Following further
meetings at local level the Union rejected the Department's offer.
The workers' concerned agreed to work the new rosters under
protest pending the outcome of Labour Court talks. The new
rosters have been worked since 18th January, 1988.
6. The claims were referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 21st January, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 24th 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
Cork on 20th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Rostered overtime has been a significant part of the
workers' weekly earnings for a considerable period of time.
The workers had adjusted their standard of living accordingly
on the clear understanding that this rostered overtime was
now part and parcel of their conditions of employment (this
fact is not disputed by the Department).
2. The claim for five times the annual loss for each member
in compensation is high, so also is the loss which will be
sustained by each worker. The Department will not only save
on the rostered overtime but in addition on the wages of two
temporary employees who are no longer required because of the
change that has already been introduced from the 18th
January, 1988.
3. The claim for increased flexibility and responsibility of
8.2% (this represents two hours' at time and a half) arises
from the increased work load due to the two temporary
employees being laid off.
4. The new Roster reduces the crews from four to three.
This in effect means that the work of four crews is now being
done by three crews. This necessitates the crews using the
tug boat, to assist the Naval Fishery Protection Ships in the
Naval Dockyard and the Harbour itself (details supplied to
the Court).
5. The loss of the rostered overtime is not the only loss
which will be incurred by the members. There will be a
strict curtailment on week-end working, and one of the
"perks" which had been enjoyed by the members in the old
Roster will also be discontinued, that is Bank Holiday work.
The new Roster makes no provision for a service on Bank
Holidays.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU)
is to restrict overtime and that its reduction be implemented
on a phased basis in line with increases in pay. The
Department's action in reducing overtime was in accord with
the aspirations of the I.C.T.U. in that the workers received
an increase in pay (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Government's policy in curtailing expenditure in the
Public Service has placed severe financial restraints on the
Department and expenditure must be kept within the
Department's Estimate. No provision has been made for any
award over and above the £6,400 offered in December, 1987.
Concession of the Union's claim, therefore, would have
serious implications for the Department in other areas where
overtime is being curtailed or eliminated and could affect
the recruitment of casual labour which it is hoped will
commence in June, 1988. Excessive compensation for the crews
of the small launches, who enjoy the benefit of regular and
secure employment, could result in the non recruitment of
these casual workers.
3. The Department does not understand the claim for
increased responsibility. The responsibilities and duties of
the grades - able bodied seaman-in-charge and leading stoker
-remain the same. If anything, the revised arrangements
enable the Department to contribute in a positive way to the
crew's responsibility - namely the reduced working hours will
lessen factors such as fatigue etc. and assist the crew
members in their designated responsibilities.
4. The issue of flexibility centres on the fact that there
is no crew exclusive to the tug boats as previously existed.
Instead crews are required to man the boat as necessary.
This is brought about as the manning of this launch is not
full time and therefore, crew would not be gainfully
employed. The tug boat is mainly required on Mondays,
Thursdays and Fridays.