Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91400 Case Number: LCR13406 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning placement on the overtime roster.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions recommends that
there should be an equitable distribution of available overtime
among all of the workers eligible for overtime working.
The court notes the worker concerned is entitled to payment in
respect of guaranteed overtime in his previous position. These
earnings should be taken into account in the distribution of
available overtime.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91400 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13406
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning placement on the overtime
roster.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a driver with the Council
since 1978. Until 1988, he had been employed as a road
sweeper/driver. Due to cut-backs which the Council imposed in
January, 1988, the number of road sweeper vehicles was reduced and
their drivers were transferred to alternative driving duties,
driving flat trucks. The worker concerned was one of the drivers
transferred. He was allowed to retain the higher road sweeper
driver rate on a personal basis, including daily structured
overtime. On 5th March, 1991, following a request from
S.I.P.T.U., the worker's union, the Council agreed to include him
on the roster for emergency overtime. The worker wishes to be
placed on the roster for non-emergency overtime. (Non-emergency
overtime represents the bulk of overtime working). His request
has been refused by the Council as the other drivers in the depot
are of the opinion that given his structured overtime he already
has sufficient overtime earnings. On 5th July, 1991, the worker
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's investigation of the above matter
on 2nd September, 1991, the worker agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In early June, 1991, the worker was informed that the
Union was objecting to overtime being given to him and
demanding his removal from the roster. This was done and he
has not worked overtime since then, even though overtime was
available. In fact, on one occasion work in his area was
given to drivers from another depot. The worker believes that
the overtime is being distributed unfairly.
2. The situation is that his own union is seeking to prevent
him being given work. This is despite the fact that both the
Union and Council have in the recent past conceded that there
is merit in his claim for overtime rostering.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was transferred from road sweeper driver
duties, he retained his rate of pay and structured overtime
rate on a personal basis. This structured overtime comprises
5 hours unworked overtime each week, which approximates to £37
per week in overtime earnings. This is not available to other
flat truck drivers in his section. He also retains a £5.50
per week road sweeper driver's differential payment.
2. The worker's gross earnings in the last financial year
have exceeded by far the gross earnings of the other drivers
in his depot.
3. The Council understands that the worker's union official
explained to him that the union had succeeded in getting him
placed on the emergency overtime roster but that his request
to be placed on the non-emergency roster would result in a
flat truck driver, who had done this work for a number of
years, being displaced. The union has further stated that the
other drivers in the depot feel that his claim is excessive.
He already has sufficient overtime payments available to him.
They feel if he was included on the roster, he would be
encroaching on the little overtime earnings which are
available to them. The other drivers have agreed that if no
other flat truck drivers are available in the depot, then he
can be called upon to work the non-emergency overtime.
4. The worker's claim does not impose any significant
additional expenditure on the Council, nevertheless, the
Council is at one with the union's view and is of the opinion
that in the interests of equity, the worker's claim should be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions recommends that
there should be an equitable distribution of available overtime
among all of the workers eligible for overtime working.
The court notes the worker concerned is entitled to payment in
respect of guaranteed overtime in his previous position. These
earnings should be taken into account in the distribution of
available overtime.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
20th September, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.