FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. (1). Retrospective payment of increased overtime rate. (2) Time off to cash cheques.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Office of Public Works(O.P.W.) employs 58 full time and 8 relief Constables at various locations who are engaged primarily in security duties. They are paid theGeneral Operative(G.O.) rate plus a shift allowance of 25%. The Union is claiming retrospective payment to 1996 on revised rates of overtime agreed between the parties at a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in October, 2002. The Union also claims that other G.O. workers in the O.P.W. and State Sector are allowed one hour off to cash pay cheques and that this should also be applicable to the claimants. Management rejected the claims. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission in January, 2003. A Court hearing was held on the 13th March, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Overtime Rate.
3. 1. Management accepted at conciliation that there was a difference in the calculation of the claimants' overtime rates relative to the rest of their colleagues.
2. It is an established principle that settlements of this nature are from date of claim i.e. 1996, and retrospection should be paid to that date.
Cheques.
3. Other workers throughout the O.P.W. receive time off to cash pay cheques. The claimants should be similarly treated. At present they are expected to carry out bank business in their own time.
4. The draft conditions of employment produced by Management did not form part of a collective agreement. It was distributed to workers without Union knowledge or agreement.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
Overtime Rate.
4. 1. At conciliation Management recognised the inequality of the overtime rate vis a vis the claimants and other general operatives and increased rates were offered in October, 2002.
2. Management does not accept that retrospection should be paid. The overtime rates should only apply from October, 2002.
Cheques.
3. Constables' Conditions of Employment (Para. 5), signed by all staff, stipulate that they would not be allowed time off during work hours to cash drafts.
4. Constables' wages reflect the fact that they are not granted time off to access wages and they are paid a 25% shift allowance which is included in their hourly rate for calculation of travel time and overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was asked to make recommendations on two issues and recommends as follows:
Retrospective Payment of Increased Overtime Rate:
The Court notes that Management were asked by the Industrial Relations Officer to enter into negotiations to try and arrive at a figure in relation to the claim for retrospection but was unable to enter into those discussions.
Given that the Management at conciliation accepted that there was an inequality in relation to the different rates and conceded a change in the overtime payments rate, the Court can find no reason to justify the non- payment of these rates back to the original claim in 1996.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the change conceded at conciliation be applied retrospectively to 1996.
The Court is conscious of the administrative difficulties in trying to calculate these arrears and would recommend to the Union that they enter into discussions with Management to arrive at a formula to facilitate the calculation of these payments.
Time Allowed to Cash Cheque Payments:
The Court, while noting that other groups have a concession for cashing cheques, is conscious that Management in drawing up the contracts for this group specifically highlighted that time off would not be available to this group.
A specific paragraph in the contract states "payment will be by government draft. Because of the nature of your work, time will not be allowed off during the working hours to cash drafts".
While the Union argues that these contracts were never agreed formally it is clear that discussions did take place in relation to the contracts and that they have been in operation since the posts were put in position.
The Court, therefore, given this situation and the understanding on which employees took up the posts, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th March, 2003______________________
TOD.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.