Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90398 Case Number: LCR13056 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings for one timekeeper.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it is
evident to the Court that the worker concerned has suffered losses
by reason of circumstances entirely unrelated to his particular
work, and for these reasons the Court recommends that he be paid
compensation to the amount of one years loss of overtime and grade
rate.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90398 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13056
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings for
one timekeeper.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Corporation's roads maintenance section for a considerable
number of years was responsible for the provision of a watching
service. The worker concerned held the substantive grade of
timekeeper and for seven years up to December, 1988 acted as
supervisor of watchmen. He was paid at pay group 22 of the
schedule of differentials instead of his substantive grade of pay
group 20. In addition he was paid four hours overtime at time and
one half each week. Over the years the demand for the watching
service has declined and the Corporation decided on financial
grounds to disband the supervisory structure with effect from
January, 1989 and to deploy the watchmen to individual sections
within the Corporation. At that time the worker concerned
remained in the roads maintenance section and retained the pay
group 22 rate and overtime. In early 1989 the Corporation made
comprehensive proposals in respect of the electricity and public
lighting section which provided for the formation of an integrated
watching/night patrol service in that section. The proposals
provided for the assignment of the worker to the electricity and
public lighting section with the retention of his higher rate of
pay and overtime for the performance for timekeeping and
co-ordinating duties. No agreement was reached on the
comprehensive proposals. The worker was instructed to report to
the electricity and public lighting section with effect from 17th
July, 1989 to carry out co-ordinating duties with the retention of
his higher rate of pay. The worker reported for duty as
instructed but subsequently returned to the roads maintenance
section and went on sick leave. The worker returned from sick
leave on 20th August, 1989 and was assigned to the electricity and
public lighting section in his substantive grade of timekeeper at
the pay group 20 rate. His loss of the group pay 22 rate and
overtime dates from then. The Union claims that due to
circumstances beyond his control the worker suffered a loss in
earnings and that he should be compensated at the rate of one and
half times the annual loss. The Corporation rejects the claim and
as no agreement was reached at local level the matter was referred
on 28th February, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on the 9th July, 1990
at which no agreement was reached. The matter was referred on
10th July, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took
place on 4th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The acceptance or rejection of the Corporation's
comprehensive proposals for the electric and public lighting
department was outside the control of the worker. He had no
say in whether or not the changes in that department would
take place. The workers in that department had to evaluate
the proposals as they affected them and it would have been
unfair to expect them to accept proposals that would worsen
their conditions just so that the worker could benefit.
Equally it was unfair on the worker to have his employment
conditions left in the hands of other workers from a different
department. The worker was placed in a very difficult
situation while others made decisions affecting him.
2. The worker received the group 22 differential and overtime
for seven years and carried both when on annual and sick
leave. His overtime was considerable and the loss resulted in
a reduction in his living standards. Due to circumstances
outside his control he has been deprived of the benefits of
his acting higher grade. He should be compensated for his
loss of earnings.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Included in the comprehensive proposals for the
electricity and public lighting section was a provision that
the worker could continue to be paid the higher rate and
overtime for as long as he carried out the limited
co-ordinating duties which would be assigned to him in
addition to the normal duties of a timekeeper in the
electricity and public lighting section. The worker reported
to that section but reverted for a short period to the roads
maintenance section. As the worker was not prepared to carry
out the limited co-ordinating duties assigned to him in
addition to his normal duties as timekeeper the Corporation
does not accept that compensation should be paid in this case.
2. After the worker reverted to the road maintenance
department he was transferred in his substantive grade of
timekeeper to fill a vacancy in that grade in the electricity
and public lighting section. With the further decline in the
number of watchmen and the very infrequent requests for
watching services the limited coordinating duties which it was
proposed to assign the worker to in 1989 no longer arose and
consequently there is no sustainable case on financial or any
other grounds for assigning coordinating duties to the worker
or to any other employee.
3. For as long as the worker continued to carry out the
limited co-ordinating duties assigned to him he would have
been paid the higher rate of pay plus overtime. The
Corporation is not responsible for the fact that the worker
ceased to carry out these extra duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it is
evident to the Court that the worker concerned has suffered losses
by reason of circumstances entirely unrelated to his particular
work, and for these reasons the Court recommends that he be paid
compensation to the amount of one years loss of overtime and grade
rate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
18th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.