FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 1293/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two workers who are employed as pressure spray bar attendants, which involves operating tarring equipment. During the past number of years, the Council claims, a practice developed whereby the two workers would work as garage helpers in the machinery yard when no tarring was being carried out. This involved doing 1.25 hours overtime (5.00 p.m. - 6.15 p.m.). The normal working day is 8.30 a.m. - 5.00 p.m.
In October, 1997, it was decided to cancel the overtime of the two workers. The Union protested that there was no consultation on the matter, and that the overtime was guaranteed. Following meetings at local level, the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation is as follows:-
"In the circumstances, I therefore recommend that the
Council should pay each of the two affected employees
a once-off lump sum of £1,000 in return for their agreeing
to the discontinuance of the former arrangements
regarding guaranteed overtime at the garage."
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 20th of May, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union is seeking a return to the agreed working hours at the garage, full compensation for the two workers from October, 1997, for loss of overtime and a guarantee from the Council that discussions will take place in future prior to any changes. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of October, 1998, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The overtime for the two workers was a condition of employment. It was not something that developed over the years. Since October, 1997, the workers have lost 55.75 hours and 46.75 hours overtime respectively.
2. The Council has accepted that it was wrong and that it had broken procedural agreements by stopping the overtime. The Union was given no chance to discuss the issue.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The tarring season can start as early as February and finish as late as November. This means that the two workers would be available to work in the garage from November to January, which is the least busy time of year. Over the past few years, the garage has been losing money and this is the reason it was decided to stop the overtime. The Council's rates of charges are not competitive with the private sector.
2. The two workers continue to earn high levels of overtime in their normal duties of tarring. The loss of overtime in the garage is not as great as the Union claims.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the annual loss arising from the discontinuance of the overtime in dispute is agreed at £500 per annum.
In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that the sum equal to twice the annual loss would represent fair compensation. This, in fact, is the amount recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The County Council accepted that the manner in which it implemented the decision to discontinue the overtime in question fell short of what was required of their own procedural agreement. On that account, the Court considers that a further three months' loss should be added to the compensation payable.
The Court varies the Rights Commissioner's recommendation accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd November, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.