Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95399 Case Number: LCR15048 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for: (1) Bonus payment, (2) Re-location payment, (3) Loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions and the information
supplied by the parties, finds as follows on the three items in
dispute:-
(1) Bonus Payment - The Court noting that a reduced allowance
will continue to be paid whilst working
the new duties recommends that the
claimants be paid a sum equal to 12
months loss.
(2) Re-location - The Court is satisfied that the existing
re-location scheme will be applied to the
claimants if they fulfil the conditions
contained therein and so recommends.
(3) Loss of Overtime - The Court in these circumstances does not
recommend compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95399 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15048
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TEAGASC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for:
(1) Bonus payment,
(2) Re-location payment,
(3) Loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2.1 In 1994 Teagasc decided, in the context of the Teagasc
Efficiency Plan 1994 - 1999, that the Coolnakilla farm which
was part of the Moorepark Production Research Division,
should be closed. The decision was taken on the basis of:-
(a) the severe financial constraints under which
Teagasc operates
(b) the need to ensure that the research programme is
operated as efficiently and effectively as possible
with priority given to those areas of the programme
which are financially viable and
(c) the need to ensure that the staffing and physical
resources attached to the research programme are
utilised in an optimum manner.
2 The four workers concerned were transferred to the main
Moorepark Research Centre and assigned alternative duties.
The move resulted in the loss of overtime earnings and a
reduction in the weekly allowance of 25% above the General
Operative scale for performing milking duties to 10% for two
staff members and 15% for one staff member, which are
applicable to their current duties. The fourth staff member
was assigned to a post which attracts no allowance.
3 The Union submitted a claim for compensation for (1) the loss
of bonus payments, (2) re-location payment and (3) loss of
overtime earnings. Teagasc rejected the Union's claim
because of its financial position. As no agreement could be
reached between the parties, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held in Fermoy in July, 1994. No
agreement was possible. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 20th June, 1995 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 27th November, 1995 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Bonus Payments
3.1 The closure of Coolnakilla farm has resulted in a substantial
financial loss for the four workers concerned. Teagasc has
refused to pay compensation to the workers for the reduction
in bonus payments.
2 The workers had enjoyed high bonus and salary earnings for up
to fourteen years and as a result had entered into financial
commitments on the basis of this rate of pay. The Union
claims that the higher bonus payments be continued for the
workers on a red circled basis.
Re-location
4.1 The workers now have to travel an extra 8/9 miles per day to
work as a result of relocation. Teagasc should compensate
the workers for the extra cost involved with the payment of a
relocation allowance.
2 Other grades within Teagasc, such as Technicians, when
transferred to other locations, do not suffer any financial
loss as a result.
Loss of Overtime
5.1 The extent of the loss of overtime earnings has caused
serious financial hardship for the workers concerned.
Teagasc should compensate the workers for the financial loss
incurred.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
Bonus Payments
6.1 Farm staff are recruited at the General Operative grade and
are assigned specific duties which attract the appropriate
agreed bonus. Eligibility for payment of the bonus and the
amount involved is related directly to the duties concerned
and the bonus is only payable while such duties are being
performed.
2 The staff concerned are no longer required to undertake
milking duties and there is no justification, therefore, for
maintaining the payment of the 25% milking bonus. Teagasc
cannot afford to pay any compensatory payments to the workers
in relation to the reduced bonus. It would create a very
undesirable precedent in Teagasc and would be likely to lead
to considerable operational and industrial relations
difficulties and have potentially serious financial
repercussions throughout Teagasc Centres.
Re-location allowance
7.1 Teagasc must ensure that the staffing and physical resources
attached to research programmes are organised in an efficient
and as cost effective manner as possible within the available
financial resources and must be consistent with the needs of
current research objectives. This can result in the
reassignment of staff to work on other research programmes at
any time. Teagasc rejects the Union's claim for
compensation.
Loss of overtime
8.1 Teagasc does not accept that valid grounds exist for the
payment of compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Teagasc is presently in a difficult financial position.
Teagasc is under a Government directive to balance its
budget. Teagasc is heavily indebted to the Banks.
2 In its present financial position, Teagasc cannot afford to
concede this claim which would have repercussive effects in
other Teagasc locations. Teagasc rejects the Union's claim
for compensation for the loss of overtime earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions and the information
supplied by the parties, finds as follows on the three items in
dispute:-
(1) Bonus Payment - The Court noting that a reduced allowance
will continue to be paid whilst working
the new duties recommends that the
claimants be paid a sum equal to 12
months loss.
(2) Re-location - The Court is satisfied that the existing
re-location scheme will be applied to the
claimants if they fulfil the conditions
contained therein and so recommends.
(3) Loss of Overtime - The Court in these circumstances does not
recommend compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.