Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90289 Case Number: LCR13073 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of overtime for two departmental operatives.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the drop in overtime earnings was due to changed requirement
from the Students Union, the Court does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90289 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13073
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of overtime for
two departmental operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. For a number of years departmental operatives have been
involved in the showing of films for clubs, societies and other
groups in the College. The showings took place outside the
students' normal study and lecture periods and was done by the
departmental operatives on overtime. Since 1988 there has been a
fall-off in demand for this service due in part to the use of
videos by the student groups. Consequently the number of overtime
hours worked by the departmental operatives has been reduced. The
Union claims that two departmental operatives have lost earnings
that they had been receiving regularly for between 12 and 15 years
and should be compensated at the rate of one and a half times
their average annual loss. The College rejected the claim and as
no agreement was reach at local level the matter was referred on
15th March, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference was held on 16th May, 1990 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 31st May,
1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing was held
in Cork on 10th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. For at least 15 years the students' union showed films
using the College's projection facilities. This service was
provided for a minimum of two nights per week and once on
Sundays between October and March of each year until 1988 when
videos were introduced. The workers concerned had a
significant level of regular overtime earnings on which their
standard of living was based. In the recent past the College
has paid compensation for loss of regular earnings in cases
such as this (details supplied to the Court).
2. The departmental operatives work under the general
services department. It is one of their terms of employment
that they operate a film projector and it is on this basis
that the general services department made the film projection
service available within the College. The departmental
operatives are obliged to provide the service outside of their
normal working hours. Now that the regular earnings derived
from this obligation have been lost the two workers should be
compensated for their loss of earnings.
3. The College has claimed that the showing of films was
merely a student social activity which put no obligation on
the departmental operatives. However the College administered
a roster of departmental operatives from the general services
department to do this work. The service was assured to
students through the roster system which the general
operatives were obliged to work. This service was never
provided based on the voluntary availability of individual
departmental operatives.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The opportunity of overtime for the workers concerned was
created by student demand which has fluctuated. Films were
shown by the student groups on the basis that the overtime
cost was refunded to the College and the group itself paid for
the hire of the films. The operation was therefore
self-financing. For economic reasons the demand for the
showing of films has dropped considerably in recent years.
This is a matter outside of the direct control of the College
and there is no validity in a claim for compensation in such
circumstances.
2. The projection of films has been carried out by a number
of departmental operatives who make themselves available on a
volunteer basis. The showings are allocated to a "pool" of
workers. There is no compulsion on the workers to provide the
service and if there is no-one available then it is not
provided. The "pool" system is operated so there is a fair
division of opportunity for overtime earnings between the
workers. In circumstances where the College had no control
over the demand for films and was providing a service on
request the College does not accept the Union's claim that the
service was provided on rostered overtime.
3. Overtime was always subject to the level of demand and
varied according to the availability of the workers in
projecting the films. The work was done on a voluntary basis
for the student groups at overtime rates. The College is not
responsible for the fall-off in student demand for the showing
of films and should not be liable for compensation for the
consequent reduction in overtime earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the drop in overtime earnings was due to changed requirement
from the Students Union, the Court does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
5th November, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.