Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90292 Case Number: LCR12943 Section / Act: S67 Parties: REVENUE COMMISSIONERS - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of overtime in the Stamping Branch in Dublin Castle.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties
which included a detailed schedule of the overtime earned by the
claimants from 1987 to date.
The Court notes that whilst there has been a decline in the level
of overtime being worked there is still a considerable amount of
overtime available to the claimants.
The Court further notes that the Revenue Commissioners are
endeavouring to procure additional business which might result in
restoring somewhat the levels of overtime previously earned.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds for
recommending concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90292 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12943
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: REVENUE COMMISSIONERS
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of overtime in
the Stamping Branch in Dublin Castle.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1988, printing work was performed on an agency basis
in the Stamping Branch on behalf of the Departments of the
Environment and of Social Welfare. However, these departments
transferred this work from the Stamping Branch to printing
agencies in the private sector which resulted in a loss of work
and overtime for the workers concerned in the Stamping Branch.
The Union is claiming compensation for the loss of overtime
earnings involved which it estimates to be between #2,000 to
#3,000 in 1988 which would now be calculated at between #4,000 to
#5,000. The claim for compensation was rejected by the
Commissioners on the basis that it had no control over the loss of
the work involved. No agreement could be reached at local level
and on 3rd April, 1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 25th May, 1990 at which no progress was made and on 28th May,
1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 27th
June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. 75% of the workload in the Stamping Branch was lost when
the contract to print social welfare books went elsewhere.
This resulted in a loss of overtime to the workers concerned
of between #2,000 to #3,000 each in 1988. This figure would
now be between #4,000 and #5,000. At the time that this work
was lost it was understood from meetings with management that
other work would replace the shortfall occurring therefore
maintaining the level of overtime. However, this in fact did
not occur. Overtime was clearly a condition of employment as
applicants were asked at interview if they would be prepared
to give a commitment to work overtime and it was clear that if
they had replied to this in the negative they would not have
got the job. When the overtime was in operation the workers
were under constant pressure to work every available hour, a
fact which has not been denied by management. The
Commissioners have stated that overtime was not a condition of
employment, however they did accept that when the overtime
working commenced the workers were asked for a commitment to
work overtime and that overtime was essential for the running
of the department.
2. If one examines the structure of the Commissioners and the
involvement of the Department of Finance, it is clear that the
authority lies with the Department of Finance, as all claims
must be referred to it and receive its sanction before they
can be paid. This also means that the Department of Finance
has similar controls over the other Departments of State and
could, if it so desired, ensure that work was not taken from
the Stamping Branch and sent elsewhere. It is therefore
unacceptable for the Commissioners to say that the loss of
overtime was beyond their control when in fact the Department
of Finance controls all the departments who would provide work
to the Stamping Branch. In previous recommendations the Court
has awarded compensation for loss of earnings. In this case
for these workers, most of whom have 20 to 30 years' service,
to lose one third of their earnings was a major and
substantial financial loss. This is clearly a situation where
action or inaction by the Department of Finance has led to
this substantial loss of overtime for the workers and they
should therefore be compensated accordingly.
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Departments of the Environment and of Social Welfare
transferred the work involved from the Stamping Branch to
printing agencies in the private sector. This was due to
changes in their requirements for the production of the
material involved which could not be dealt with in the
Stamping Branch. The loss of this work and the consequent
loss of overtime for the workers was therefore a matter over
which the Commissioners had no control. There is therefore no
valid basis for the Union's claim. The Court in a number of
similar cases has not recommended compensation for loss of
overtime earnings as the loss was due to a decline in business
outside the control of the employer, (details supplied to the
Court).
4. 2. Overtime working is not a condition of employment for the
workers nor is it compulsory in the Stamping Branch. An
examination of the overtime earnings of the workers concerned
shows that the workers had different levels of overtime
earnings indicating that they worked overtime on a voluntary
basis (details supplied to the Court). The Commissioners have
always recognised the voluntary nature of overtime working in
the Stamping Branch and have never sought to alter this
situation. The Commissioners have sought work elsewhere to
replace the work lost. In addition, the Court is requested to
view this claim within the context of the Programme for
National Recovery (PNR). An essential element of the PNR is
that the control of public expenditure of which public service
pay forms a significant proportion, should not be put at risk
by a build up of cost increasing awards. There could be
significant repercussive costs in the public service if the
claim is conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties
which included a detailed schedule of the overtime earned by the
claimants from 1987 to date.
The Court notes that whilst there has been a decline in the level
of overtime being worked there is still a considerable amount of
overtime available to the claimants.
The Court further notes that the Revenue Commissioners are
endeavouring to procure additional business which might result in
restoring somewhat the levels of overtime previously earned.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds for
recommending concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___11th___July,____1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman