Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89515 Case Number: LCR12559 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claims concerning: (a) Compensation for loss of overtime earnings. (b) Claim for up-grading of Driver. GENERAL BACKGROUND: 2. The Union is claiming compensation for loss of overtime for a truck driver and that a sludge lorry driver should be up-graded to the higher rate and grade of "Jetter." The County Councils position is that the truck drivers loss of overtime does not warrant compensation and that the sludge lorry drivers work cannot be properly compared with the work of a "Jetter." The part
Recommendation:
(a) Compensation for Loss of Earnings:
The Court recognises the circumstances necessitating the
redeployment of the worker concerned. The Court considers however
that the Council in making this redeployment should have taken
account of the magnitude of the loss sustained by the worker
concerned as a consequence of the transfer, given the previous
reduction in earnings as a result of the July 1987 agreement, and
also the long period over which these benefits had been enjoyed. In
the circumstances the Court considers that compensation should be
paid to the worker concerned in the form of a lump sum of
#1,050.The Court so recommends.
(b) Claim for upgrading:
The Court considers there is merit in the claim of the
union. On the basis of the submission made by the parties and the
comparisons perceived by the Court between the work of the Jetter
Driver and the Sludge Lorry Driver the Court recommends that the
following salary scale should apply to the Sludge Lorry Driver.
#161.92 - #163.65 - #164.41 - #165.01 - #165.70 - #166.48 -
#167.24 - #168.02 - #168.72 - #169.49 - #170.45 - #171.47 -
#172.43.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89515 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12559
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claims concerning:
(a) Compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
(b) Claim for up-grading of Driver.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is claiming compensation for loss of overtime for a
truck driver and that a sludge lorry driver should be up-graded
to the higher rate and grade of "Jetter." The County Councils
position is that the truck drivers loss of overtime does not
warrant compensation and that the sludge lorry drivers work
cannot be properly compared with the work of a "Jetter." The
parties could not reach agreement at local level on the above
mentioned claims and on 25th January, 1989 the matters were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 5th April, 1989 at which
settlement was not reached and on 22nd August, 1989 the matters
were referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The
hearing took place on 25th August, 1989.
Claim (a) Compensation for loss of overtime earnings
BACKGROUND:
3. The worker concerned lives in Swords and was deployed as a
driver to the Garristown area from 1981 until January, 1988.
During this period he enjoyed regular rostered structured
overtime in respect of vehicle preparation and parking plus
regular rostered structured overtime in respect of travel to
and from Garristown. In July, 1987 there was an agreement
between the Unions and the County Council that due to the
financial cutbacks,regular structured overtime would be reduced
by 50%. In January,1988 the worker concerned was redeployed
from Garristown to Swords. The Union claims that the worker,
having already suffered a 50% reduction of overtime due to the
July, 1987 agreement,should be compensated for the further loss
of overtime earnings resultant from his redeployment from
Garristown to Swords. The Council claims that the overtime is
not necessary as the worker is not now required to travel from
Swords to Garristown and that loss of overtime earnings
resultant from redeployment is not compensatable.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker concerned was on regular structured overtime
since 1981 in Garristown. He had accepted the agreement of
July, 1987 to reduce structured overtime by 50% on the basis of
jobs being secured and the retention of 50% of the structured
overtime he was then working. When he was arbitrarily moved
from Garristown to Swords he suffered a further loss which was
too severe and breached the agreement of July, 1987 as regards
the retention of 50% of structured overtime. The Council are in
fact in breach of their own agreement.
2. This case was clearly a redeployment situation and in all
such cases our Union members have maintained their existing
earnings. The Union is requesting that the worker be given
back his regular structured overtime or be given compensation
for loss of earnings based on #20 per week.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The loss of overtime arose from circumstances outside the
Council's control i.e. cutbacks in financial allocations. The
worker concerned no longer has to travel from Swords to
Garristown and therefore is not entitled to structured overtime
for reporting early.
2. In July, 1987, the Council and the County Council Congress
Group of Unions made an Agreement under the aegis of the Labour
Court for the elimination of a very 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.
3. The Court has already ruled twice for Dublin County Council
since the July,1987 Agreement that overtime lost through
redeployment caused by financial cutbacks is non-compensatable.
There is no new technology or extra productivity involved in
the elimination of the overtime. In such cases the Court has
consistently refused to award compensation.
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.
Claim B Claim for up-grading of driver
BACKGROUND:
6. 1. The worker concerned is employed as a driver in the Swords
drainage depot. His main duty is to transport sludge from
Swords and Malahide sewerage treatment works to the tip head.
The sludge is loaded onto a specially adapted tipper truck and
is mechanically tipped at the tiphead. The worker also has
responsibility for hosing down the truck when it is loaded and
unloaded. The Union claims that the worker is doing a job
which is similar in nature and operation to that of a jetter
driver. ( A Jetter deals with the unblocking of drains and the
operation involves the use of a separate mechanical appliance
from the actual vehicle). The Council rejected the claim and
contends that the worker's duties are not comparable with those
of a jetter driver.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker has to carry out a very dirty and unpleasant job
which is totally different from any other job in Dublin County
Council. The worker in driving the slurry truck for the
Council is doing a similar job and operation to that of the
jetter vehicle.
2. The worker agreed to go onto the converted truck on the
basis that he believed he would be given the jetter grade
because both vehicles operate on sewerage treatment.
3. The Union does not accept that the Council's financial
position is so severe that it cannot afford this claim.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Union has requested that the worker should be paid the
same rate as a jetter driver. This is not a proper comparison
as the jetter driver operates a separate mechanical appliance
from the actual vehicle as well as working in sump, manhole and
sewers.
2. The worker is paid a special differential allowance in
respect of the nature of his job. In addition he gets an
allowance for washing his vehicle. If the worker's claim
succeeds the Council could not afford the large number of
repercussive claims which might flow from it.
3. There have been very severe financial cutbacks in the
Council (details supplied to the Court) and claims of this
nature cannot be afforded.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. (a) Compensation for Loss of Earnings:
The Court recognises the circumstances necessitating the
redeployment of the worker concerned. The Court considers however
that the Council in making this redeployment should have taken
account of the magnitude of the loss sustained by the worker
concerned as a consequence of the transfer, given the previous
reduction in earnings as a result of the July 1987 agreement, and
also the long period over which these benefits had been enjoyed. In
the circumstances the Court considers that compensation should be
paid to the worker concerned in the form of a lump sum of
#1,050.The Court so recommends.
(b) Claim for upgrading:
The Court considers there is merit in the claim of the
union. On the basis of the submission made by the parties and the
comparisons perceived by the Court between the work of the Jetter
Driver and the Sludge Lorry Driver the Court recommends that the
following salary scale should apply to the Sludge Lorry Driver.
#161.92 - #163.65 - #164.41 - #165.01 - #165.70 - #166.48 -
#167.24 - #168.02 - #168.72 - #169.49 - #170.45 - #171.47 -
#172.43.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
8th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.