Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88458 Case Number: AD8852 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/18033 concerning compensation for loss of overtime for six workers.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the terms of the Productivity Agreement
presented as new undisputed evidence to the Court and which was
not made available to the Rights Commissioner, the Court does not
uphold the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and is of the view
that the College is not obliged in this case to pay compensation
for loss of overtime.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88458 APPEAL DECISION AD5288
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CM/18033 concerning compensation for loss of
overtime for six workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1987 a claim for compensation on behalf of six
technicians for loss of overtime earnings was heard by a Rights
Commissioner. Based on the information available to him at the
hearing the Rights Commissioner recommended that the six workers
receive compensation ranging from three hundred to two thousand
pounds. However the College had omitted to bring to the Rights
Commissioner's attention at the hearing, clause ten of a long
standing Productivity Agreement which provided that when overtime
was discontinued there would be no compensation to staff affected.
The College subsequently endeavoured, in the light of the
Productivity Agreement to get a clarification from the Rights
Commissioner on his recommendation but was unable to do so. The
College was unwilling to implement the terms of the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation, while the Union insisted that the
terms be implemented in full. As no agreement could be reached in
discussions at local level the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation, to the Labour Court on the 21st
June, 1988, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing took place on the 12th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The amount of income lost through the cessation of regular
overtime has had severe effects on the six workers concerned.
Details of the workers financial loss have been supplied to
the Court. The College has previously accepted a Rights
Commissioner's recommendation in a similar situation where one
year's loss of overtime was awarded as compensation. In the
present recommendation the award only amounted to two thirds
of one year's compensation as the College pleaded insufficient
funds.
2. Having received the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
the College made reference to an agreement regarding no
compensation for loss of overtime, however the College knew of
the existence of this agreement at the time of the hearing.
Compensation for loss of overtime was also awarded to a
technician subsequent to the hearing. The Union submits that
the College should in this instance compensate the six members
concerned to the amount of the one year's overtime lost or at
least should compensate the workers as per the terms of Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/18033.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In discussions locally and with the Rights Commissioner
the College had overlooked clause ten in a long standing
productivity agreement for technicians which provides:-
" If overtime is discontinued no compensation for
loss of overtime will be sought by members of
staff affected."
On 27th October, 1987, the College wrote to the Rights
Commissioner to ask for a review of his recommendation in the
light of clause ten. Because of circumstances outside the
control of the Rights Commissioner, the Union, and the
College, he was unable to review the case. The Union had
sought implementation of the recommendation but the College
had declined to implement it.
2. The College considers that under clause ten of the
technicians productivity agreement the technicians concerned
have no right to claim compensation for loss of overtime. The
clause clearly states that they will not seek compensation for
such loss. The College made an error in agreeing to discuss
the claim but it does not intend to compound the error by
implementing the recommendation.