Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92608 Case Number: LCR13977 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for: (1) loss of overtime and (2) loss of differential.
Recommendation:
OVERTIME:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
satisfied that, due to its financial difficulties, Teagasc has
significantly reduced overtime working without compensation on an
organisation-wide basis. Such working is now strictly on a
work-needs basis and in the circumstances the Court does not deem
compensation to the claimants appropriate in this case.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
25% Milking Allowance
As allowances are paid in respect of specific duties, the Court
does not consider that there is justification for re-instating the
milking allowance now that the dairy herd has been sold off.
However, having regard to the length of time that the claimants
were in receipt of the allowance and the overall impact of recent
events on their earnings, the Court recommends that they each be
made a once-off payment of #600.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92608 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13977
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for: (1) loss of overtime
and (2) loss of differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1992 the Authority decided to close its dairy unit at
Belclare Research Centre, Co. Galway. The dairy herd was
subsequently sold and the three workers who were employed in the
dairy unit were assigned to other duties. The three workers
suffered a substantial reduction in overtime earnings. Two of the
workers had their allowances in respect of milking duties reduced
from 25% to 10%. The Union submitted a claim for compensation for
loss of overtime and reduction of differential in respect of two
of the workers and loss of overtime earnings in respect of the
third worker. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on the 23rd of June, 1992. As no agreement
was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 30th September, 1992. A Court
hearing was held in Galway on the 11th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS: (1) OVERTIME
3. 1. The three workers concerned suffered a substantial
reduction in their earnings as a result of the elimination of
overtime (details supplied to the Court). The workers had
undertaken financial commitments on the basis of their gross
earnings. They must be compensated in order to alleviate the
hardship on them of trying to maintain their standard of
living on a much lower wage than heretofore enjoyed.
MILKING ALLOWANCE:
3. 2. The two workers concerned were in receipt of a 25%
differential since 1976. The reduction of the allowance to
10% has meant a significant loss to them. It is unfair that
the Authority should eliminate overtime and reduce the
workers' differential from 25% to 10%. Their 15% differential
must be maintained on a red-circling basis and the workers
should be paid appropriate compensation.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS: OVERTIME:
4. 1. Throughout all the Authority's research centres
programmes are subject to on-going assessment and change,
which results in the reassignment of staff to work involving
higher or lower levels of overtime as required by the research
programme at any given time. It would be inappropriate to
compensate workers each time they were reasigned to different
duties for loss of overtime which might result.
MILKING ALLOWANCE:
2. The workers received the 25% differential because they
performed specific duties and when the workers were no longer
required to undertake those duties payment of the allowance
could not be justified. Arising from their reassignment the
workers are in receipt of a 10% allowance above the general
operative rate.
3. The Authority is a very serious financial situation
which could be made more precarious if these claims were
conceded. Concession could also lead to repercussive claims
at other locations, should the Authority modify research
programmes or reduce overtime costs at those locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
OVERTIME:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
satisfied that, due to its financial difficulties, Teagasc has
significantly reduced overtime working without compensation on an
organisation-wide basis. Such working is now strictly on a
work-needs basis and in the circumstances the Court does not deem
compensation to the claimants appropriate in this case.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
25% Milking Allowance
As allowances are paid in respect of specific duties, the Court
does not consider that there is justification for re-instating the
milking allowance now that the dairy herd has been sold off.
However, having regard to the length of time that the claimants
were in receipt of the allowance and the overall impact of recent
events on their earnings, the Court recommends that they each be
made a once-off payment of #600.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
1st March, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman