Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89193 Case Number: LCR12358 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that in the particular circumstance of this case,
the claimant should be paid compensation of #750 in full and final
settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89193 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12358
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of
overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker, a general operative, was in 1983 appointed as
assistant to the sewers operative, having responsibility for
cleaning toilets and checking tanks. He initially worked some
week-end overtime checking tanks and cleaning toilets. In 1986
the need for checking tanks was eliminated. Six hours weekend
overtime (three hours at time and a half, three hours at double
time) on toilet cleaning duties was then rotated between the sewer
operative and the claimant. The sewer operative died shortly
after this arrangement came into being and the claimant then
worked the overtime every week-end. In 1987 it was reduced to
four hours week-end overtime, two hours at time and a half and two
hours at double time. Commencing in February, 1988, the claimant
was absent from work for a period of twelve weeks due to an injury
and during that time the Council decided to discontinue this
overtime as it considered it was not essential. The Union served
a claim for compensation for loss of earnings. No agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 19th
September, 1988, but again no agreement was reached. The matter
was referred, on 1st March, 1989 to the Labour Court. A Court
hearing took place on 7th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Week-end working was an established feature of the
claimant's job. Overtime, in this instance, was obligatory on
the holder of the job and, therefore, tantamount to a
condition of employment.
2. The claimant enjoyed the overtime for a considerable
period of time. His standard of living and financial
commitments were related to the fact that overtime was an
integral part of his earnings. He was assured in 1986 that
the overtime would continue. The basic reasons justifying
compensation are, therefore, that there was a dependence on
the higher earnings and that the claimant had an on-going
expectation of earnings at the higher level.
3. The cleaning of the toilets continues to be done in normal
working hours. A direct saving must, therefore, accrue to the
Council. Part of the savings should go to the claimant to
cushion him against the effect of this cutback. Since 1983,
the Council has also been reducing the hours worked on the
toilets and in 1987, they did not replace the sewer operative.
4. The Union estimates that overall the claimant lost #35.00
per week, taking account of overtime, travelling and
eating-on-site allowance. This represented approximately 22%
of his earnings and the Union is seeking appropriate
compensation for the loss of overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the claimant's absence in 1988, it was decided by
the Council that the cleaning of the toilets on overtime was
non-essential having regard to the financial cut-backs due to
the policy of curtailment of public expenditure which
necessitated that staff and resources had to be employed to
the best advantage.
2. Since it is the considered opinion of the Town Engineer
that the practice of cleaning toilets on overtime is no longer
essential it has not been provided for in the Estimates
adopted by the Council for the financial year ending December,
1989.
3. The elimination of this overtime does not give rise to
"savings" as such since there is a need to curtail
expenditure.
4. Overtime has also been cut in other areas. Compensation
has been paid only in the case of refuse collectors who had
guaranteed overtime.