Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88848 Case Number: LCR12250 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRINITY HOUSE SCHOOL AND THE DEPARTMENT 0F EDUCATION - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
and noting in particular that
(a) the work which was performed by the claimants on
overtime and which formed part of their duties is now
being performed by temporary staff
and
(b) the matter in dispute had been referred to Working Party
set-up to discuss a Rationalisation Programme,
is of the view that in the particular circumstances of this case
the claimants are entitled to some compensation.
The Court recommends compensation to the amount of 6 months loss
of overtime previously worked to each of the claimants.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88848 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12250
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TRINITY HOUSE SCHOOL AND THE DEPARTMENT 0F EDUCATION
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Trinity House is a secure school to which boys with
behavioural problems are sent by the Courts. It was opened in
1983 and is the only secure centre of its kind in the State. It
was established under the Children Acts, and it has accommodation
for up to thirty boys. There are ten duty officers concerned in
the dispute at the school, and their function is to ensure that
appropriate security procedures are implemented within the school.
The workers are rostered to provide 24 hour cover over seven days.
Up to May, 1988, any absences arising from sick leave, holidays
etc was covered by overtime. In May of 1988 however, the
Department decided to terminate all the overtime involved, and to
employ casual staff to cover absences. The elimination of the
overtime resulted in substantial losses for each of the workers
concerned (details supplied to the Court). The Union on behalf of
the workers sought compensation of two times the annual loss. The
Department of Education rejected the claim on the grounds that due
to cutbacks there was no money to continue the overtime or to pay
compensation. It took the view that the overtime had never been
guaranteed and that there was no justification for the claim.
Agreement could not be reached at local level and on 13th
September, 1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 2nd November, 1988. No agreement was reached, and on 3rd
November, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 12th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In early 1988, a joint working party of Union and
Management was established to consider the implications of the
reduced budgetary allocation available to Trinity House. It
was agreed that there would be no change in the status quo
until the working party reported its conclusions. The working
party met on a number of occasions but before it could report
the Department unilaterally introduced short-term temporary
workers, who could be called upon when there was a vacant
shift. The Department's action was totally against the
agreement on the maintenance of the status quo.
2. The loss to the duty officers is significant and the loss
will not only be to the members ongoing income but to their
pension as well.
3. The overtime has been an intrinsic part of the job of the
duty officers since their recruitment in late 1982/early 1983.
Both management and duty officers recognised that there could
not be a haphazard or non rostered approach to the filling of
the duty roster. The overtime was of a compulsory nature in
that the duty officers were instructed to ensure that there
was always adequate cover available. In similar circumstances
in recent recommendations, the Court has awarded compensation
(details supplied to the Court).
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1988 budget provision for overtime was drastically
reduced (details supplied to the Court). Management had no
alternative but to cut overtime for all staff in the school,
and the duty officers are not alone in this regard. There is
simply no money available to maintain overtime at its previous
high levels, or to pay compensation for loss of earnings.
2. The claimants have no statutory right to overtime nor is
there any provision in their conditions of employment which
guarantees them a specific level of overtime. The overtime
could not, therefore, be regarded as structured, in that the
duty officer's overtime levels were essentially determined by
the number of vacancies on their shift roster.
3. Vacancies on the roster are now covered by temporary
staff. It is submitted that in these days of high
unemployment, expenditure on additional staff is preferable
to expenditure on overtime. Trade union policy has been
against high levels of overtime. In addition, the deployment
of temporary staff removes the burden of excessive overtime
from the duty officers, thereby creating a more socially
acceptable working pattern.
4. 4. The workers concerned in the claim are paid an unsocial
hours allowance in addition to their shift allowance (details
supplied to the Court). This is done on a strictly personal
basis, and is very unusual.
5. The repercussive effects of any award for compensation in
this case could be very extensive. At present the general
thrust of Government policy is towards reducing expenditure in
the public sector and undoubtedly this will result in a
reduction in the amount of overtime being worked in Government
departments and State agencies and bodies. Were a precedent
to be established under which compensation had to be paid in
all cases for loss of overtime the cost to the State would be
prohibitive. Where cuts in overtime were made as a result of
reduced public finances, the Labour Court, in general, has
rejected claims for compensation (details supplied to the
Court). In all the circumstances the Court is asked to reject
the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
and noting in particular that
(a) the work which was performed by the claimants on
overtime and which formed part of their duties is now
being performed by temporary staff
and
(b) the matter in dispute had been referred to Working Party
set-up to discuss a Rationalisation Programme,
is of the view that in the particular circumstances of this case
the claimants are entitled to some compensation.
The Court recommends compensation to the amount of 6 months loss
of overtime previously worked to each of the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
2nd February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.