Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89225 Case Number: LCR12381 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of six employees in the Corporation's Sewers and Main Drainage Section, for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
noting the financial constraints on the Corporation at the present
time, the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89225 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12381
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of six employees in the Corporation's Sewers
and Main Drainage Section, for compensation for loss of overtime
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Up until 23rd May, 1987, the claimants worked overtime as
follows: one (a driver) worked every Saturday from 8am to 1pm,
four others (general operatives) worked the same hours on
alternate Saturdays and one (general operative) was a substitute.
In addition, some public holidays were worked. These periods of
Saturday working resulted in four hours at T+.50 (6 hours) and one
hour at double time (2 hours) giving a total of 8 hours. This
overtime was eliminated in May, 1987. The Corporation claimed the
overtime was eliminated because of its financial situation and
rejected a claim by the Unions for compensation for lost earnings.
The Unions calculated the driver's overtime earnings (based on
1987 pay rates) at #1790 per annum and #942 for the four general
operatives with the substitute's earnings being less again (figure
not available). The Corporation further argued that the claimants
had already been compensated in that in 1985 they received #300
each in a comprehensive agreement negotiated with the Unions prior
to the opening of the new Treatment Works and Mainlift Pumping
Station. This is rejected by the Unions which claim that the
elimination of this overtime was never an issue at those
discussions.
3. As no agreement could be reached at local level, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
13th January, 1989. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference on the 16th February and on the 15th March the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 24th April, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants had been working the overtime for many
years (27,15,11,9,5 and 3 years respectively). The overtime
and the earnings derived therefrom substantially determined
the living standards of the claimants. The situation is
compounded in the case of the claimant with 27 years overtime.
He is due to retire shortly and would have been entitled to
include the overtime for pension purposes. However, this now
has been lost to him.
2. Overtime of this nature cannot be considered as casual.
The length of time involved and the regularity meant that it
had become 'institutionalised' and the claimants were entitled
to consider that it had become an accepted part of their
employment conditions. Furthermore, they had to be available
for work on Saturdays and public holidays otherwise they would
have been deployed to work elsewhere.
3. The #300 paid to the claimants in 1985 related to the
opening of a new sewage treatment works. At no stage during
these discussions did the Corporation give any indication that
their overtime would be eliminated when the new system became
operational. It was never an issue at these discussions.
4. In 1987 the Unions processed a similar claim through the
Court on behalf of seven drivers/hoist operators in the
Housing Maintenance section (LCR11559 refers). While the
Court rejected the claim it also stated that "the Corporation
and the Unions should meet and agree a framework within which
problems such as these can be discussed and equitable measures
implemented." Subsequent discussions with the Corporation
were fruitless and even a conciliation conference failed to
bring about any agreement. The Court subsequently clarified
the recommendation and informed the parties that any further
cases would have to be dealt with individually, as they arose.
5. In the Unions' view, the intention of the Court in
LCR11559 was quite clear. In using the words "equitable
measures" what the Court had in mind was an agreement in
respect of such cases, which accepted the financial or other
reasons for the Corporation ending overtime and which also
took into account the impact of the loss on the staff.
Clearly the Court intended that there should be a framework
for discussion, resulting in equitable settlements in such
cases. Consequently, in rejecting the present claim, the
Corporation is acting contrary to the intentions of the Labour
Court, as expressed in LCR11559.
6. The Corporation's policy in respect of such claims is
not consistent. Compensation was paid in recent times to
staff who lost overtime when the city boundary changed and
also to those who moved into the new Civic Offices.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The claim has had to be rejected because of the
continuing dire financial position of the Corporation (full
details supplied to the Court). Despite the fact that the
Corporation has had to reduce its workforce by 1210 (307
officers and 903 non-officers) due to natural wastage and
employees who availed of the Government's scheme for Voluntary
Redundancy/Early Retirement in the the two year period from
1st January, 1987 to 31st December, 1988, and by a further 57
(7 officers and 50 non-officers) to the end of January 1989,
the Corporation still cannot sustain the remaining workforce
financially within the monies approved of in the Corporation's
Estimates for the current year.
2. The reasons for abolishing the overtime in this case
and in rejecting the claim for compensation is exactly the
same as in the case made by the Unions in LCR11559.
3. The Corporation has already paid a #300 lump sum to each
of the six employees who are the subject of this claim in
respect of, inter alia, the productivity aspects associated
with the operation of the New Treatment Works and the Main
Lift Pumping Station where they are employed (details supplied
to the Court). Furthermore, 15 other employees of the Main
Drainage Section who were affected by diminution in the level
of overtime working were paid #150 each as part of the
agreement with the three Unions in respect of New Treatment
Works and Main Lift Pumping Station (details supplied to the
Court).
4. The Corporation is satisfied that the six employees, the
subject of the present claim, who received #300 lump sum as
part of the comprehensive agreement in relation to loss of
earnings, disturbance and productivity elements which arose
from the operation of the New Treatment Works and Main Lift
Pumping Station should not be dealt with in a different manner
from their 15 colleagues who also suffered a diminution in
their overtime and had only received #150 lump sum as part of
the comprehensive settlement.
5. There is no prescribed guarantee of overtime for any
Corporation employee. Under the terms of the 1975
Productivity Agreement, all Corporation employees are obliged
to work overtime when instructed.
6. Should this claim, or any similar claims, be conceded,
there could be considerable repercussive effects throughout
the Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
noting the financial constraints on the Corporation at the present
time, the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
-------------------
10th May, 1989 Deputy Chairman
D.H./U.S.