Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89203 Case Number: LCR12405 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BALLINA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 4 refuse workers for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and noting that the working of overtime was not mandatory and also
noting that the loss of overtime arose out of a cut back in
service, is of the view that the circumstances which gave rise to
this claim are not the same as those which were the subject of
L.C.R. 12149.
The Court does not find reasons for recommending compensation for
the loss of the overtime in question and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89203 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12405
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BALLINA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 4 refuse workers for
compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1979/80 the Council were requested by local traders to have
refuse collected, in the town area, after normal business hours.
The proposal was put directly to the workers at the time and they
agreed to work the overtime. In considering the Estimate of
Expenses for 1987, the Council, faced with a record debit balance
of #208,000, decided on a number of cost cutting measures,
including the elimination of the nightly refuse collection service
with effect from 19th May, 1987. This resulted in a weekly loss
of approximately #30 per man per week. The Union claims that the
workers should be compensated for the loss of earnings. The Union
quoted L.C.R. No. 12149 in support of its claim, where in a
similar circumstance the Court recommended payment of #1,000 gross
in two moieties. The Council dispute the similarity of the two
cases and also argued that given its financial circumstances it
cannot afford to pay any compensation. As no agreement could be
reached locally, the dispute was referred on 14th February, 1989,
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement
could be reached at a conciliation conference held on 9th March,
1989, and the matter was referred on 10th March, 1989, to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 2nd May, 1989, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the nightly refuse collection service was introduced,
there was no formal Union involvement and the workers agreed
on the basis that they felt they had little choice in the
matter of overtime working.
2. Although the overtime ceased in 1987, the claim was not
lodged till early 1989. The reason for this arises from the
fact that the Court in L.C.R. 12149 recommended compensation
for similar workers employed by Mayo County Council for loss
of overtime earnings. The workers here concerned feel that
this should equally apply to them. The Union requests the
Court to recommend pro-rata compensation for the workers
concerned.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This claim is a direct result of L.C.R. 12149. In the
Council's view the two cases are not similar. The overtime
working was not mandatory. No one was asked to work the
overtime against their wishes.
2. The workers concerned do not have a statutory right nor is
it a condition of their employment that they get overtime.
The Union in 1979 agreed that the level of overtime to be
worked shall be decided, from time to time, by the Council.
3. The payment of compensation for a reduction in overtime
earnings would be at variance with the Council's efforts to
reduce costs. Concession of the claim would have repercussive
effects for the Council and other local authorities.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and noting that the working of overtime was not mandatory and also
noting that the loss of overtime arose out of a cut back in
service, is of the view that the circumstances which gave rise to
this claim are not the same as those which were the subject of
L.C.R. 12149.
The Court does not find reasons for recommending compensation for
the loss of the overtime in question and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
19th May, 1989.
B.O'N/J.C. Deputy Chairman