Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94127 Case Number: LCR14457 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COUNTY DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of one worker for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court recommends
the claimant be compensated in the amount of #3,500 in full and
final settlement of her claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94127 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14457
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
COUNTY DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
(C.D.V.E.C.)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of one worker for compensation
for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a cleaner with
the C.D.V.E.C. in 1976 and is employed at the School of Horology,
Blachardstown. She worked 22 hours per week. In 1987 as part of
a cost reduction programme the Employer reduced the worker's hours
to 10 hours per week. The worker claimed that she was unfairly
treated and disputed the Employer's right to implement such a
change. Subsequently the Union, on behalf of the worker, claimed
restoration of her original hours, compensation for loss of
earnings and entitlement to Social Welfare Benefits. Management
rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held in
July, 1990, November, 1991 and January, 1992. No agreement was
reached. The Union subsequently sought to refer the dispute to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Employer was consulted and, after a protracted delay, refused to
agree to such an investigation. Subsequently the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 28th February, 1994. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 28th March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer substantially reduced the worker's hours
(with a corresponding reduction in pay) without consultation
or agreement. For the previous 11 years the employee worked
22 hours p.w. and was insurable for all benefits under the
Social Welfare Acts. Following the Employer's decision to
arbitrarily reduce her hours to 10, the worker's employment
ceased to be insurable under the A1 class, with subsequent
loss of benefits, including Unemployment and Disability
Benefit.
2. The claimant's working hours were subsequently increased
to 18 hours (restoring her A1 insurability) and the Union
accepted this. In so doing the Employer acknowledged that
her hours should not have been reduced in the first place.
The Employer made no offer of compensation, yet the worker
suffered substantial loss of earnings and entitlement to
unemployment benefit (details supplied to the Court). She
must be adequately compensated. The Union estimates the
worker's loss at #7,416
C.D.V.E.C. AND DEPARTMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1987 the C.D.V.E.C. lost 198 hours per week cleaning
and caretaking duties, due to a Government embargo on the
filling of posts in the Public Sector. Management was forced
to redeploy its cleaning and caretaking services and
consequently had to reduce the claimant's hours.
2. By its very nature part-time work is subject to review
and change. Many other part-time workers in the C.D.V.E.C.
had their hours reduced.
3. Loss of Social Welfare entitlements are common
throughout the workforce both in the Public and Private
Sectors, following reduction in working hours.
4. The question of compensation payment was considered by
the Employer but could not be conceded as it would have
serious repercussive effects in the Public Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court recommends
the claimant be compensated in the amount of #3,500 in full and
final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31 May, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.