Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD911 Case Number: LCR13219 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a mechanical fitter for compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that having regard to the circumstances
prevailing at the time, it was reasonable for the Corporation to
withdraw all overtime in the workshop at Baltray Road. However,
as the investigation resulted in disciplinary action in October,
1986, the Court considers that the main examination of the
situation must have concluded soon afterwards. The decision to
continue without overtime from then onwards was therefore based on
other considerations which normally would have been the subject of
negotiation at that particular time as the general abolition of
overtime did not take place until mid 1987. The Court therefore
considers that there are unusual circumstances in this case and
recommends that the Corporation pay the worker a sum of #750 and
that he accept it in full and final settlement of his claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD911 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13219
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a mechanical fitter for
compensation for loss of overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed in the Roads Maintenance
Section at Baltray Depot, Howth. From 1982 to 1986, the worker
concerned and a number of other workers were paid for overtime
working on most Saturdays (8 hours) and generally two nights per
week (2 hours per night). In July, 1986, the overtime was
terminated following the discovery of serious irregularities in
the working of the overtime. The Corporation's enquiries resulted
in the early retirement of an Area Inspector, the demotion of an
Assistant Inspector, serious disciplinary action being taken
against the Foreman Fitter and disciplinary action against two
General Operatives. The worker concerned was not involved in the
overtime irregularities. The overtime working was not restored.
In May, 1987, the Corporation, as a result of its seriously
deteriorating financial position, terminated the working of all
overtime throughout the Corporation. The Union claims that the
worker concerned should be compensated for the loss of overtime
during the period July, 1986 to May, 1987. The Union estimates
the loss involved is approximately #3,360. The Corporation
rejects the Union's claim. On 30th July, 1990, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. As no
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 8th
November, 1990, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, on
18th December, 1990, for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the matter on 20th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was not involved in the
investigation of overtime irregularities. At no time was he
under any suspicion, interviewed or implicated in any illicit
action. He did, however, suffer significant loss arising out
of decisions made by the Corporation when dealing with the
irregularities. He was an innocent victim of the overtime
cuts introduced in July, 1986.
3. 2. The worker concerned has suffered mentally as well as
financially as a consequence of the Corporation's action. His
good name and reputation was damaged by implication among his
colleagues at work, friends, family etc. He should be
compensated for his loss of overtime during the July 1986 to
May 1987 period and in respect of the damage and anguish
caused to him.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reason for the cessation of the overtime for the
period July, 1986 to May, 1987, was for the purpose of
investigating in detail the irregularities which had been
discovered. The Corporation had very valid grounds for the
action which it took in this matter and it is satisfied that
it is entitled to discontinue the working of overtime in any
such circumstance without paying compensation to any employee.
2. The reason for the continued cessation of the overtime
worked in the Roads Maintenance Depot at Baltray, Howth, since
May, 1987, is due to the severe financial restrictions under
which the Corporation has had to operate since then. (Details
provided to the Court).
3. Other categories of Corporation employees have sought
compensation for the loss of such overtime and in all cases
the Corporation has refused to pay it because finances are
such that they do not allow for it. Claims were referred to
the Labour Court and the Court in all instances recommended
that financial compensation should not be paid. (LCR's13053,
11559, 11465 and others refer).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that having regard to the circumstances
prevailing at the time, it was reasonable for the Corporation to
withdraw all overtime in the workshop at Baltray Road. However,
as the investigation resulted in disciplinary action in October,
1986, the Court considers that the main examination of the
situation must have concluded soon afterwards. The decision to
continue without overtime from then onwards was therefore based on
other considerations which normally would have been the subject of
negotiation at that particular time as the general abolition of
overtime did not take place until mid 1987. The Court therefore
considers that there are unusual circumstances in this case and
recommends that the Corporation pay the worker a sum of #750 and
that he accept it in full and final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
-----------------
March, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. Chairman