FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CORPORATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 18/99/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed as an Assistant Foreman by Dublin Corporation Parks Department since the 15th of September, 1969. In May, 1998, there were nine workers transferred. The worker concerned was transferred from Ormond Square Park where he worked for 10 years to Edenmore Park. Prior to the transfer his duties included civic decoration which involved overtime. Since the transfer the worker has not been required to work overtime.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of this worker for loss of overtime earnings. The Corporation rejects the claim stating that prior to the transfer the overtime was not regular and was not guaranteed. The issue could not be resolved at local level and was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 10th of May, 1999, as follows:-
"I, therefore, recommend that Dublin Corporation should offer, and that SIPTU and the worker should accept, a once-off lump sum payment of £500, this payment being accepted as being a wholly exceptional basis and not forming a precedent of any kind whatsoever and to be in full and final settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 29th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Parks Superintendent decided it would be a good idea to move staff around within the Department. The transfers caused a lot of inconvenience and were unnecessary.
2. The worker concerned did regular overtime for ten years prior to his transfer.
3. The worker suffered a substantial loss of earnings as a result of the transfer. The Union's claim for compensation equal to twice the annual loss is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The transfers occurred as a result of promotions within the Department.
2. The overtime was not regular and was not guaranteed.
3. If the Corporation concedes the Union's claim it would lead to the payment of compensation to other employees whose overtime earnings are lost or reduced as a result of re-deployment. This would have huge financial consequences for the Corporation.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by both parties. The Court is satisfied that the appellant worked regular and structured overtime for many years prior to his deployment into another area within the Parks Division, where there has been no overtime available since. His deployment within the Parks Division was brought about as a result of promotions and vacancies, and the appellant complied with the move.
The Court is of the view that as the overtime earnings had been regular and structured over a period of 10 years, and as there are no further opportunities to earn overtime, the appellant should be compensated for his loss.
Due to unique circumstances in this case, the Court recommends a payment of £5,000 to be paid in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is therefore amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th August, 1999.______________________
GB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.