Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89506 Case Number: LCR12539 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a pipe-laying inspector for compensation for loss of overtime earnings and loss of mileage allowance.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89506 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12539
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a pipe-laying inspector for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings and loss of mileage
allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Council in 1968, as a
pipe-laying inspector. In this capacity he was in receipt of
constant overtime and a mileage allowance. In October, 1988, as a
result of a reduction in the number of new water and drainage
schemes, his job became surplus to requirements at that time. He
was redeployed by the Council but allowed to keep his inspectors'
rate. The Union is claiming compensation of #4,705 in respect of
his loss of overtime and travel allowance. The Council rejected
the claim and on 7th March, 1989, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on the 8th June, 1989,
(the earliest date suitable to the parties) and the matter was
referred on 20th July, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 2nd
August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the nine years prior to 1988/'89, the inspector's
overtime was, on average, 26.5% of his annual income. The
inspector has entered into financial commitments as a result
of his expectation of overtime. It was reasonable for him to
assume that, because of the nature of his job, overtime
earnings would remain a substantial part of his income. The
Union, as a result, believes that 75% of an average year's
overtime (#2,370) is reasonable compensation.
3. 2. The Inspector also received a mileage allowance. In the
three years before he was moved his travel allowance was as
follows:- 1985/86 - #3,665, 1986/87 - #3,812, 1987/88 -
#1,977, and in the six months from April to September, 1988
his allowance was #941. When he was removed from his post as
a pipe-laying Inspector he found himself left with a used car
and no means to replace it. Since car cost and depreciation
are two of the main criteria used as a basis for calculating
mileage allowance, the Union considers he should be
compensated for the loss of the allowance. The Union believes
that a sum of #2,335, (75% of an average year's allowance) is
reasonable compensation.
3. The Union requests the Court to consider this case
sympathetically and recommend concession of the claim. The
Inspector's case is unique insofar as he did not lose his
overtime and allowance as a result of financial restraints in
the Council, but because he was moved from a post which he
held for twenty years to a job in a depot.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Compensation has never been awarded for loss of travel
expenses, as such a payment is merely recoupment for expenses
incurred. Such a precedent would have enormous 'knock-on'
effects throughout the Public Service.
2. The elimination of the overtime arose from circumstances
outside the Council's control, i.e. the elimination of the
Sanitary Services New Works Programme. The Sanitary Services
capital allocation has been reduced from #6.6m. in 1988, to
#1.5m. in the current year, mainly for final accounts. There
was no new technology or extra productivity involved in the
elimination of the overtime.
3. Between April and July, 1987, the Council and Unions made
an agreement for the elimination of a significant amount of
overtime. No compensation for loss of overtime was payable
under this agreement. It is Council policy that only
essential overtime is worked.
4. Concession of this claim would set such a precedent that
the Council would have no option in similar circumstances but
to make an employee redundant rather than pursue its present
policy of redeployment. The Council has already redeployed
over 200 staff, most with loss of overtime. If the present
claim is conceded these employees will also have a claim for
compensation. The County Council simply cannot afford the
cost of such claims. Four hundred jobs were eliminated from
the County Council in 1988 in an attempt to alleviate the
critical financial situation.