FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY NOONAN LINEHAN CARROLL, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Work contract and hours worked.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as Organiser in the Adult Education Department of University College Cork. He works a 33.5 hour week averaged over the session (that is the year of his activities ending on the 30th September each year) and has held the position since 1971. He is engaged in the creation and development of Adult Education classes throughout Munster as part of the University's off-campus activities. His working week has historically been spread beyond the standard office working hours in that his responsibilities involve meetings, class organisation etc. which take place at evening times and weekends.
The dispute before the Court concerns the worker's claim that since 1990 he has worked 1,327 hours overtime without payment or time off in lieu. The worker argues that in the past he has been compensated for overtime in the form of time off in lieu or alternative cash payments and that this arrangement has operated effectively from 1978 to 1990.
The College's position is that at no time has it refused to arrange for time off in lieu of such duties when pre-planned in accordance with normal approval procedures. It argues that the Organiser's contract did not envisage overtime or excess hours in the performance of his duties but that a practice emerged over the years where the worker did not operate strictly within the terms of his contract and, commencing in 1973, he submitted claims for overtime payment or time off in lieu.
The matter has been the subject of much correspondence between the parties but progress could not be made and the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 7th March, 1997 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 28th May, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position of the Organiser's overtime was addressed by the governing body of the College in 1978. It decided that his working week was to be 33.5 hours averaged over the session and that overtime was to be compensated by time off in lieu.
2. As a product of this decision of the governing body, arrangements were put in place which identified that the worker's activities as Organiser ran effectively over a two- year cycle (duration of the course) and identified the months and periods of each year in which the Organiser would clock-up overtime and the months and periods of which he would take time off in lieu. Practice developed whereby the Organiser would take Friday off.
3. The arrangements set in place operated effectively from 1978 to 1990 and records illustrate the overtime worked and time off in lieu afforded during that period. However, overtime hours still gave rise to payment of financial compensation by the College.
4. In 1990, at the request of the College, the Organiser was asked to undertake substantial extra duties and responsibilities. This development coincided with a sudden and dramatic down-swing in the secretarial back-up which was made available to carry out these new duties. The result was that in order to maintain the level of service to the community the Organiser had to work long hours on mainly administrative matters. Despite protestations, this unsatisfactory situation has continued for 6.5 years.
5. Since 1990 to date the Organiser has accrued 1,327 hours overtime which needs to be addressed. This situation has caused the Organiser considerable stress and has affected his health.
6. The worker is seeking that the Court would issue a recommendation both in respect of the overtime accrued which equates to 40 weeks work and also with regard to the future compensation of overtime. The worker requests a financial settlement as time off in lieu would pose difficulties in relation to the continuity of his work duty.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The position of the governing body and College management since 1976 in relation to the Organiser has been that:-
He should only be required to work a 33.5 hour week. He should not be required to travel on more than two evenings per week, such visits should be pre-determined and planned so as to minimise the travel involved, continuous overtime should not recur.
2. A practice emerged over the years in which the Organiser did not operate strictly within the terms of his contract. Based on his justification of the need for hours in excess of 33.5 hours, he submitted claims at different intervals commencing in 1973, for overtime payments and/or time off in lieu.
3. The policy in relation to overtime payment was clarified in writing on numerous occasions between 1973 and 1995, and should have been followed. This was not always the case as claims for payment continued to be made.
4. The problems relating to the Organiser's excess hours is that he appears to want to continue his practice of deciding unilaterally what hours are required to be worked in any week without any reference to the Head of the Department or his Assistant to whom he reports.
5. The system of certification in lieu of valid excess hours does operate for other Organisers/co-ordinators in the Department without difficulty or complications. There is no reason why this cannot operate effectively in respect of the worker concerned.
6. The College earnestly wishes to resolve the issue before the Court and has made many attempts to do so. It is reasonable and necessary to provide that the amount of work carried out by the Organiser outside of normal working time should be moderate. At no time has the College refused to arrange for time off in lieu of such duties, when they are pre-planned and in accordance with normal approval procedures. Such time off will be arranged on a planned basis, taking account of the exigencies of the Department, and in accordance with a programme approved by the Director of the Centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the very detailed submissions made by both parties and has also taken into account the historical background to the claim.
It is clear to the Court that the role of the claimant in relation to the organisation has changed over the years. New structures have been developed and the claimant appears to have difficulty in accepting this. On the clear understanding that the claimant co-operates and accepts the supervisory structures in place, in particular that in all matters relating to the organisation and performance of his responsibilities he clears his assignments in advance with his designated supervisor, the Court recommends that once more he should be paid an ex-gratia sum of £1,000. The College for its part must ensure that no further accumulation of overtime will be permitted. The above sum is recommended on the basis that it meets in full the claims made.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
8th July, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.