Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92687 Case Number: AD938 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAVAN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner recommendation (DC 76/92) concerning the overtime pay for particular duties.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions, and in particular noting
the proposals contained in Paragraph 9 of the Council's
submission, the Court is of the view that in all the circumstances
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable and should
be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92687 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CAVAN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner recommendation
(DC 76/92) concerning the overtime pay for particular duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker has been employed by Cavan County Council since
1969. He was originally employed in the machinery yard on
driving duties, and in 1972 he was appointed to the post of
driver assisting in the County libraries. In 1986 the worker
was granted a 5 year career break for domestic reasons, and on
resuming work in February, 1992 was informed that the duties
of his post now included acting as Caretaker in the Courthouse
in Cavan during the absence of the permanent Caretaker. The
additional responsibilities on such occasions would be to
ensure that the Courthouse and gates are properly secured, and
that the alarm systems are activated and de-activated at night
and in the morning as well as performing the other duties of
the Caretaker.
2. The Union contended that these responsibilities were not
part of the worker's original duties and it was unfair that he
was obliged to undertake them now. Discussions took place in
June, 1992 regarding the issue of compensation for these
additional duties. The Council offered to pay 12 hours
overtime per week (inclusive of 5 hours compulsory overtime),
but this was rejected.
3. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on the 23rd September, 1992. The Rights
Commissioner recommended (DC 76/92):
"that the worker should be paid 1.50 hours overtime per
visit for relief in addition to his existing compulsory
overtime working from Monday to Friday".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner
Recommendation).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new duties were assigned to the worker on his return
from career break when he was in no position to argue the
point.
2. Payment of one and a half hours overtime per visit is
inadequate compensation. The Council has already paid two
hours overtime and other public service employers guarantee
two or three hours in similar circumstances.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation fails to address
the issue of payment of mileage rates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was informed by letter that on his resumption,
his duties would include acting as a Caretaker for Cavan
Courthouse during the absence of the regular Caretaker.
2. Twelve hours overtime per week was offered to the worker
to cover the duties of activating and deactivating the alarm
system in the Courthouse.
3. Travelling expenses were rejected because the worker's
post is a composite one with headquarters in Cavan Town.
4. Alternative arrangements in regard to the alarm system
have been introduced (Paragraph 9, Council's submission).
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions, and in particular noting
the proposals contained in Paragraph 9 of the Council's
submission, the Court is of the view that in all the circumstances
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable and should
be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
18th February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
P.O'C./J.C.