Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88786 Case Number: LCR12179 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings on behalf of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting the reasons for the reduction in overtime, does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88786 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12179
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of overtime earnings on behalf
of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Council since
November, 1974 as a fitter mechanic in the machinery workshop in
Lifford. There are five fitter mechanics and a foreman currently
employed there. His main job is the repair and maintenance of the
Council's fleet of lorries and vans. Since 1984 the employee has
worked a substantial amount of overtime, and this overtime has
increased his weekly earnings by approximately #100 per week.
Since August, 1987 overtime has virtually been eliminated and the
Union has claimed compensation on behalf of the employee for loss
of overtime earnings. The Council has rejected the Union's claim
on the grounds that constraints on its financial resources has
necessitated cutbacks on all its services. The dispute was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the
6th September, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was held on the
5th October, 1988 but no agreement was reached. The matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 17th October, 1988. A Court hearing took place in
Letterkenny on the 30th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the period 1984 to 1987 the employee worked an average
of two hours' overtime daily plus eight hours on Saturdays.
The overtime earnings amounted to #100 gross per week. The
employee has experienced a substantial drop in earnings
(details supplied to the Court) since the virtual elimination
of overtime by the Council. Overtime earnings were an
integral part of the worker's earnings over the past decade
and his home and family commitments were geared to that level
of income.
2. While the employee was paid for overtime worked,
nevertheless, he always responded to emergency calls from the
Council and worked in difficult and indeed sub-standard
conditions. His travel arrangements to and from work involve
a round trip of approximately thirty four miles daily and his
petrol expenses are twenty pounds per week. His overtime
earnings helped to defray his travel expenses. The sudden
withdrawal of overtime opportunities, with the resultant drop
in the level of earnings, has had a detrimental effect on his
standard of living. The Union contends that the worker should
be cushioned against this substantial reduction in earnings
and requests that he be compensated in keeping with accepted
standards. The Court has recommended concession of similar
claims in the past (details supplied to the Court).
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to antiquated workshop facilities, very little
maintenance work could be carried out to the fleet prior to
1982, with the inevitable consequence being a large number of
breakdowns. Since they could not be planned for, they had to
be dealt with as they arose, usually on overtime. This varied
from week to week and was divided between the fitter
mechanics. As a result of E.C. Regulations the Council had to
bring its fleet up to standard and maintain that standard.
This combined with the completion of a new purpose built
workshop in 1982, diminishing funds for direct labour
projects, and a reduction in the number of lorries
necessitated a review of the operation of the machinery
workshop. The Council introduced a Planned Maintenance
Programme in 1984. Records were kept for each vehicle,
indicating maintenance carried out, breakdowns etc. The
effect of the Programme became apparent when overtime was
virtually eliminated for the last three months of 1984. The
Programme, due to delays in filling vacancies, was disrupted
in 1985 and 1986 and this resulted in overtime returning, but
on a lesser scale, because of a reduction in fleet size.
Since August, 1987, the Programme has been operational again,
bringing overtime under control.
2. The worker is given the opportunity to work overtime as it
arises. The number of Council lorries has been reduced from
66 in 1981 to a proposed 36 in 1989. The number of plant
operators has reduced by 34% between 1981 and 1988. Seven
operators were granted voluntary redundancy, and a further
three are proposed in 1989. One fitter mechanic, granted a
career break in 1987, has not been replaced. The number of
hours on the utilisation of Council lorries has reduced
considerably since 1984. The policy of the Council is to
reduce costs in relation to the machinery workshop and it is
unreasonable to accept a situation where overtime is paid
where plant is idle due to lack of work. The Council is
required by Government to maximise savings through natural
wastage, redeployment, career breaks, job sharing, termination
of short term contracts, reduction in overtime, and travel
costs. The Council has had to implement cutbacks in all
sectors and the concession of this claim would have widespread
repercussive effects within the Council. Resources are
at present strained to the limit to maintain essential
services, as well as employment levels, and the payment of
compensation for loss of overtime would be unwarranted.
3. The Court has recognised the serious financial position in
the Local Authority Service and the Public Service generally
in a number of recent recommendations (details supplied to the
Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting the reasons for the reduction in overtime, does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
6th January, 1989 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.