LCR13678

Subject:
Claim on behalf of two workers for compensation for loss of shift and overtime earnings.

Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the length of time for which the two claimants had been paid
shift allowance the Court recommends that they both be paid as
compensation for the loss of shift allowance a sum equal to two
and a half times the annual loss.

The Court does not recommend payment of compensation for loss of
overtime.

Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD92164 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13678

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES: GALWAY CORPORATION

and

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two workers for compensation for loss of
shift and overtime earnings.

BACKGROUND:
2. Both workers were employed as caretakers on the Hillside
Housing Estate, Galway. This estate is a development of 24
houses for itinerant families which was set up in the
mid-seventies.

3. One of the workers was recruited in 1981 and assigned to
caretaking duties at Hillside. The other worker who was
recruited in 1988, was initially assigned to normal labouring
duties in the housing section before being assigned to Hillside.
As the duties involved shift working both workers were paid a
shift allowance of one-sixth general operative's rate. They
also worked between 3 to 3.75 hours overtime each week.

4. In September, 1991 the Corporation decided, because of
financial constraints, to discontinue providing caretakers for
the Hillside Estate. It decided to involve the residents of the
Estate in the maintenance of their own area with suitable
back-up (details supplied to the Court). As a result both
workers were assigned alternative general operative duties.
Both workers lost their shift allowance and one worker has not
worked overtime since his transfer.

5. Initially the Union sought the re-instatement of the
workers to their former positions. Subsequently the Union
claimed compensation equivalent to two and a half times the
workers' annual loss. The Corporation rejected the claim.

The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
15th October, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on 15th
January, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on 23rd March, 1992 for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Court hearing was held in Galway on 21st May, 1992.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Both workers had long service as caretakers and had
reasonable expectations of remaining in their particular
jobs. In the case of the worker with ten years service he
was specifically recruited for the position in Hillside.

2. The workers have suffered considerable financial
losses as a result of their transfers.

3. The workers have been assigned to other duties as a
result of a rationalisation programme carried out by the
Corporation. It is unfair that they should incur a
financial loss. They should be red-circled or
alternatively, paid compensation of 2.50 times their annual
loss which is the norm in these circumstances.

CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The rationalisation of the Housing Maintenance Section
is as a result of financial constraints placed on the
Corporation.

2. The Corporation is adhering to Government policy
regarding local authority housing whereby residents are to
assume more responsibility for the maintenance of their
houses.

3. The workers were recruited as general operatives and
under their conditions of employment are liable to be
assigned duties at the discretion of the Corporation.

4. The Corporation does not guarantee overtime to any of
its employees.

5. Shift allowances are payable only to those workers who
are required to work shift duties.

RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the length of time for which the two claimants had been paid
shift allowance the Court recommends that they both be paid as
compensation for the loss of shift allowance a sum equal to two
and a half times the annual loss.

The Court does not recommend payment of compensation for loss of
overtime.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


Evelyn Owens
____________________
12th, June, 1992
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman


Note:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.