Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88722 Case Number: LCR12109 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of structured overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court accepts the O.P.W.'s contention that no compensation should
be paid to the worker who has transferred to the Four Courts and
for whom regular rostered overtime is still available. In respect
of the other workers concerned the Court recommends that the
O.P.W.'s offer be amended to provide for compensation to the
equivalent of one year's loss of earnings.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88722 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12109
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of structured
overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are five workers involved in this claim, four of whom
are boilermen. The fifth was a gatekeeper at Dublin Castle. The
four boilermen are employed at a number of government offices, and
they lost a substantial amount of overtime per week as a result of
the conversion of solid fuel boilers to natural gas. The
gatekeeper lost his overtime earnings as a result of changes which
took place at the Castle. The Union, on behalf of the workers
served a claim on the Office of Public Works (O.P.W.) for
compensation for the lost overtime. The O.P.W. were prepared
to offer six months compensation, but no more. This was not
acceptable to the Union. Agreement could not be reached on the
issue at local level, and on 28th April, 1988, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 20th June, 1988. No
agreement was reached, and on 20th September, 1988, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 17th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is important to note in this dispute, that the loss of
the structural overtime in the case of the boilermen came
about not as a result of financial cutbacks, but directly as a
result of the conversion of solid fuel boilers to natural gas.
This changeover to modern technology will provide ongoing
benefits for the O.P.W. Yet management are not prepared to
offer adequate compensation to the workers.
3. 2. The loss of earnings has created severe financial
hardships for the workers, as they had built their lifestyle
around their earnings. It is not unreasonable to insist that
they be adequately compensated for their losses.
3. In view of the adjudication by the Labour Court in two
identical claims in the recent past involving the same
employer it was unfair of O.P.W. not to respond more
realistically. The Union would request that this claim be
treated no less favourably.
O.P.W.'s ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The financial and economic considerations of the State
must have a strong bearing on all cost increasing claims. The
recent improvement in the public finances is due to
exceptional and once off factors which will not be carried
forward to subsequent years. A very significant sum will
still have to be borrowed adding to the debt problem. Further
cuts in public expenditure are planned for next year. It is
imperative to maintain strict control over the public service
pay bill which this year is expected to be the same as a
proportion of government spending as in 1987.
2. Improved exchequer returns do not translate into
additional funding for public service pay. The position of
the Office of Public Works is that it is having to cope with
ever increasing demands on a diminishing financial allocation
for wages. Central Building Maintenance Workshops, where the
six claimants are employed, have had to rely on some 30
voluntary redundancies, exclusive of natural wastage, to keep
within budget in 1988. There is no prospect at this time of
any relief in 1989 or sucessive years. The offer of six
months loss of earnings which has been put to the Union is the
maximum which the O.P.W. has the ability to meet and even then
only with considerable difficulty.
3. Claims for compensation due to loss of structured overtime
increase pay roll costs. While the overall amount involved
may seem insignificant when judged against the total
expenditure of the O.P.W., any amounts paid out in
compensation will have to be paid out of the existing funds
available to the Central Building Maintenance Workshop for
wages. No extra funds are available or can be made available
to meet compensation awards and accordingly the awards can
only be financed by reducing the amount available for wages by
a similar amount. Inevitably this means that employment must
be reduced or the rapidly diminishing amount available for
overtime to the remainder of the workforce must be cut. In an
effort to meet the financial constraints placed upon the
Central Building Maintenance Workshop in recent years the
O.P.W. has been forced to steadily reduce overtime working
over the past number of years (details supplied to the Court).
4. 4. Monies paid out in compensation will have serious
repercussions for the rest of the workforce. It will be their
fellow workers who will finance any awards made to the
claimants in this dispute. Workers in other services of the
O.P.W. have suffered as a result of cutbacks. Drainage
workers have been placed on short-time working in 1987 and now
face up to five weeks short time working before the end of
this year. It is unacceptable in a situation where one group
of workers cannot be guaranteed a basic week's employment that
their fellow workers are seeking compensation for their loss
of overtime. The O.P.W. would strongly urge the Court to
recognise that the claims made by the Union cannot be
considered in isolation from the critical nature of the
O.P.W.'s finances. Ability to pay must be the major
consideration in seeking a resolution to the dispute.
5. In the case of one of the claimants, the loss of
structured overtime has been compensated for by the obtainment
of other opportunities to enhance his earnings and no loss has
been suffered (details supplied to the Court). This is not
the case for the other claimants but they are nevertheless in
a position to avail of whatever overtime opportunities are
currently available, and any that become available in the
future. The outlook in this regard may be limited at present
but this is also the situation for the remainder of the
workforce who from time to time in the past have had
considerable opportunities for high and regular overtime
earnings for long periods.
6. The O.P.W. has examined all Labour Court Recommendations
concerning claims for compensation over the past 3.50 years.
This examination has shown that of 72 such cases considered by
the Court in that period, 41 were rejected while 31 were
upheld in whole or in part. In the more recent cases the
Court has taken account of the severe financial constraints
facing public sector employers and in a majority of cases has
recommended against the payment of any compensation. The
reasons given by the Court have included recognition of the
need to maintain employment to the maximum extent possible.
7. The Union's claim can only be considered in tandem with
O.P.W.'s ability to meet the cost of financing them. The
offer already made to compensate the claimants for loss of
structured overtime at a sum equal to six months loss of
overtime is a fair and equitable offer in the present
financial climate. The O.P.W. requests the Court to recommend
accordingly.