Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90365 Case Number: LCR13053 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions for compensation for loss of earnings for employees deployed to choke cars in the Housing Maintenance Section.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties,
and is satisfied that the curtailment of the service which in turn
gave rise to the loss of overtime arose directly from the
stringent financial constraints imposed on the Corporation in
1987. In the circumstances the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
It also appears clear to the Court that in the nature of things an
improvement in the existing level of service would be so
beneficial that the Corporation will arrange for such improvement
to the extent that circumstances allow, and the Court therefore
recommends that the extension already proposed should be accepted
by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90365 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13053
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for compensation for loss of earnings for
employees deployed to choke cars in the Housing Maintenance
Section.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are two choke cars deployed to the housing maintenance
section of the Corporation. Choke cars are involved mainly in
clearing blockages in drains and sewage pipes within Corporation
flats and housing schemes. The service commenced in 1968 and
until 1987 was provided on a 24 hour basis. The choke cars are
assigned to the north and south sides of the city respectively.
Three crews are assigned to each choke car and a crew consists of
a driver and a helper. In order to provide 24 hour cover 365 days
per year the crews operated a rota system i.e. each crew worked
overtime one month on and two months off. Effectively each crew
worked overtime for a period of 4 months each year. In May, 1987
the Corporation discontinued overtime as part of a cost - cutting
exercise following a reduction in its overall expenditure
provision. The Unions are claiming compensation for the loss of
overtime earnings involved (#400 to #480 per month for each crew).
The Corporation rejected the claim and as no progress could be
made at local level the matter was referred on 15th February, 1990
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 22nd June, 1990 at which no agreement was
reached and the matter was referred on 27th June, 1990 to a full
hearing of the Labour Court which was held on 4th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Corporation eliminated overtime in 1987 after the
workers concerned had been in receipt of overtime for twenty
years. Over this period the workers built their living
standards on the basis that their earnings would not be
reduced. It is grossly unfair that they should suddenly
suffer a vast reduction in pay without compensation.
2. The choke car crews were recruited on the basis that they
would be available for work at all times outside normal
working hours. This would enable them to deal with the
substantial number of emergencies which were dealt with after
normal working hours. Had the workers not accepted this
condition they would not have been considered for the
positions on the choke cars. It was rostered overtime which
had to be worked.
3. In L.C.R. 11559 the Court recommended that the Corporation
and the Unions should meet and agree a framework within which
claims such as this can be discussed and equitable measures
implemented. Attempts by the Unions to set up such a
framework have been rejected by the Corporation.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation's financial position has deteriorated
significantly since 1983. In 1987 the situation was extremely
serious due to a reduction in the overall expenditure
provision. This had the effect of reducing the level of
services provided by the Corporation and placed in jeopardy
the maintenance of the then existing workforce. In the
financial circumstances then pertaining it was necessary to
reduce and in some cases eliminate overtime. It was not
possible for the Corporation to concede claims for
compensation for loss of overtime then and the present claim
must also be rejected for the same reasons.
2. Since 1987 the financial position of the Corporation has
deteriorated further and it has had to further reduce
employment levels and services and continue to limit severely
overtime working. Concession of this claim would have massive
repercussive effects throughout the Corporation.
3. The Corporation rejects the claim for compensation on the
basis of its financial position. Many other similar claims in
various employments have been rejected by the Labour Court
where the reasons for the overtime cutback were the poor
financial position of the employer. In L.C.R. 11559 a claim
for loss of overtime against the Corporation was rejected for
the same reasons.
4. The Corporation particularly since 1987 has reviewed all
its services continuously in the context of the level of
finance made available in each years estimates. As a result
of the most recent review of the Housing and Building
Programme the Corporation is satisfied that it can provide an
improvement in the level of its choke car service within the
level of finance available until 31st December, 1990.
Accordingly, the Corporation has authorised the working of one
hours overtime at time and a half rate, Monday to Friday, by
two motor drivers and two general operatives, in order to
provide the improved service. It must be emphasised that
there is no guarantee that the level of finance available in
1991 will permit the working of any overtime by choke car
crews.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties,
and is satisfied that the curtailment of the service which in turn
gave rise to the loss of overtime arose directly from the
stringent financial constraints imposed on the Corporation in
1987. In the circumstances the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
It also appears clear to the Court that in the nature of things an
improvement in the existing level of service would be so
beneficial that the Corporation will arrange for such improvement
to the extent that circumstances allow, and the Court therefore
recommends that the extension already proposed should be accepted
by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
18th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.