FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim for loss of earnings arises following the ending of the Boyle and Bonet drainage scheme. At the time the scheme ended, 69 workers were employed there of whom 49 were made redundant, 11 were offered alternative employment with the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, and 9 were retained by the OPW on maintenance work. (The redundancies and severance package were the subject of Court Recommendation No. LCR14958). The claim results from the ending of bonus payments on completion of the drainage scheme. The Union has quantified the loss at £70/£80 per week in some cases and is seeking 2 years' loss of earnings in each case. The claim is on behalf of 7 workers retained on maintenance duties, with knock-on to the 11 who transferred.
The OPW's position is that bonus was only paid while workers were employed on the drainage scheme and that as the Boyle/Bonet scheme had a finite lifespan, bonus would end with the scheme. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 19th of June, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Roscommon, on the 8th of October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Claims for compensation for loss of earnings are common and the Labour Court has recommended compensation of 2.5 times the annual loss in LCR12107 (UCD/Electrical
Trades Union), LCR13678 (Galway Corporation/SIPTU), and LCR13902 (Irish Sugar/SIPTU).
2. During the lifetime of the scheme, the operators were paid basic pay plus varying amounts of bonuses. When the scheme ceased, the bonus payments stopped thereby creating a loss of income for the workers concerned who have a justifiable case for compensation being paid.
OPW'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Employment on construction drainage schemes is of its very nature temporary. While it might be expected that a small number (less than 10%) of staff would be retained when a scheme transfers to maintenance, there is no, nor has there ever been, any guarantee of continuity of employment when the construction phase is complete.
2. Many construction schemes have been completed and transferred to maintenance since the introduction of the Bonus Scheme, e.g., the Maigue, Boyne, Corrib, Monaghan/Blackwater, Bonet, etc., and the question of compensation for the loss of the bonus has not been an issue for those who opted to remain on a maintenance scheme. It was accepted that bonus payments did not and do not apply on maintenance schemes.
3. It was known for a considerable time that the Boyle Construction was coming to an end. Based on suitability and seniority in the grade, staff had the choice of accepting the redundancy package or of opting for a full-time position or, for some, on a temporary basis on drainage maintenance or of applying for re-deployment. Employees were aware that, if they opted for any of these alternatives to redundancy, the loss of the bonus was inevitable. They could not have an expectation that the bonus would continue and, therefore, cannot reasonably claim compensation.
4. The terms of LCR14957, (OPW / MANDATE/SIPTU), regarding compensation for loss of earnings for 2 clerks redeployed to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, have been extended to all staff redeployed and they have been paid one year's loss of basic earnings. At that hearing, no reference was made by the parties to the loss of bonus earnings as a consideration in addressing the question of the rate of pay/loss of earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court has concluded that the claim for compensation for loss of bonus earnings is not well-founded.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
23rd of October, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.