Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88897 Case Number: LCR12234 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 2 general operatives for compensation for loss of earnings following redeployment.
Recommendation:
6. In considering this claim the Court wishes to state that it
considers that the Council offer as set out in Page 5 of their
submission, (see paragraph 3 of this Recommendation), was
reasonable in the light of the financial restrictions on Local
Authorities and an equitable way of resolving the dispute. The
Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for retaining the basic rate of pay and compensation for
loss of overtime.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88897 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12234
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 2 general operatives for
compensation for loss of earnings following redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to cutbacks in public spending the Council sought to
reduce costs by redeploying 2 general operatives from refuse
collection to other duties. Particulars of the Council's proposal
were sent to the Union and a number of meetings were held at local
level to discuss the various cost reducing options. The Union
proposed that whenever a member of the refuse collection crew was
absent due to illness, the service would continue to operate with
the reduced crew. The Union estimated that this would achieve an
annual saving of #10,000. The Council rejected this option
believing that significant savings would not in fact be achieved.
The Council felt that savings could be achieved either by a cut in
overtime or a reduction in the manning levels on refuse trucks
from 4 helpers to 3.
3. In an effort to reach agreement the Council proposed the
following:-
(i) That the Union agrees to operate either of the refuse
vehicles with 3 helpers when one of the 4 helpers is
absent due to illness, leave, etc., and
(ii) That the Council will allow 2 hours overtime per week
to each of the 5 man crew on the refuse trucks while
continuing to provide a full refuse service.
(iii) These proposals to come into effect from 15th March,
1988.
The Union rejected these proposals. In March, 1988, the Council
redeployed 2 refuse workers to the roads section. As a result of
the redeployment the 2 workers concerned suffered a reduction in
their basic rate of pay and lost regular overtime. The Union is
claiming compensation. Local negotiations failed to resolve the
matter and on 2nd August, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
achieved at a conciliation conference held on 16th November, 1988,
and the matter was referred on 22nd November, 1988, to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 21st December, 1988, in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union sought to retain the rates of pay of the 2
workers concerned and compensation for the loss of overtime
earnings, however, the Council was unwilling to negotiate
terms. As a result the Union had no option but to take the
dispute to the Court.
2. The workers have suffered a reduction of #4.61 each per
week in basic pay and they also lose approximately #3,000 each
per annum as a result of the loss of regular overtime.
3. There are numerous precedents for retention of rates of
pay in circumstances where workers are redeployed and of
payment of compensation for the loss of earnings arising out
of the reduction in overtime e.g. Labour Court Recommendations
No's. 11997 and 12069. The Council has refused to accept
these precedents.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Council was fortunate in being able to offer
permanent alternative employment in the roads section to the 2
workers as a result of vacancies arising due to retirements,
natural wastage, etc. A number of operations on roads
performed by roadworkers carry a higher rate of pay.
2. Due to the prolonged absence, on sick leave, of a refuse
collector the Council contacted the 2 workers concerned about
filling the vacancy. One refused the offer of temporary
employment on the refuse truck whilst the other accepted, and
he has been constantly employed as a refuse collector from
August to November, 1988, (apart from 1.5 weeks in October,
1988).
3. If the Council continued to pay the 2 workers the refuse
collectors rate while they are employed as roadworkers, it
could lead to claims for parity from other roadworkers. The
Rationalisation of Wage Structure of General Worker Grades
proposal of July, 1981, accepted by the unions, states "that
workers be paid the rate appropriate to the job". This was
recently upheld by the Court in Recommendation No. 11951.
4. The reduction in manning levels has enabled the Council
to achieve the level of savings provided in the Estimate of
Expenses for 1988, while maintaining a full refuse service in
the difficult financial circumstances prevailing.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. In considering this claim the Court wishes to state that it
considers that the Council offer as set out in Page 5 of their
submission, (see paragraph 3 of this Recommendation), was
reasonable in the light of the financial restrictions on Local
Authorities and an equitable way of resolving the dispute. The
Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for retaining the basic rate of pay and compensation for
loss of overtime.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th January, 1989 -------------
B. O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman