FULL RECOMMENDATION
) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BISHOPSTOWN COMMUNITY SCHOOL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR18428/04/DI
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant (herein referred to as the worker) is employed as a Caretaker by the school. The dispute before the Court concerns a number of claims by the worker regarding payment of overtime, payment for covering holiday periods, payment for supervision of children during break times, and payment of an allowance for on-call duties. Management rejects the claims.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 23rd September, 2004 as follows:
“Having carefully considered the representations made by the parties I find that payment of overtime should only be made where the overtime has been sanctioned in advance by school management. The arrangement whereby the Caretakers cover for each other during holiday periods should continue to be compensated on the basis of time-off in lieu arrangement. However, due to there being some confusion as to the arrangements regarding overtime, I recommend that a once-off payment of €300 be made to the worker”
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 28th September, 2004, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th April,2005.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker contends that he is entitled to a shift premium if not entitled to payment of overtime for the unsocial hours that he currently works. A split shift system carries a premium of one sixth. He along with another caretaker, now cover the hours of 7.30am to the end of out of school hours activities which finish approx 10.pm. The arrangement is that one person covers the earlier shift and the other comes in and covers the later shift. This is done on a rota basis. He contends that the normal practice has been and should continue to be payment of overtime for work performed after normal hours of 8.am to 4.pm.
2. The schools activities after hours which includes adult education, schools of music, gymnasium among others, are very profitable so therefore, it is possible to pay overtime. He is also claiming an entitlement to payment of overtime for holiday cover instead of the current practice of leave in lieu of cover. Leave in lieu is given on a flat rate basis, whereas overtime is paid at one and a half times the hourly rate.
3. Supervision was not mentioned in the workers terms and conditions of employment. It is a teachers role and in the absence of a teacher the worker performed the duty on the understanding that he would be paid for it at a later stage. Management is trying to use a situation they created which made the workers job almost impossible as an excuse not to pay for work.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All overtime must be sanctioned in advance by school management. If the Caretaker was required to work after school hours, he would be requested to do so and would be paid overtime for his attendance. The rules and budgets are laid down by the Department of Education and Science and the Department does not have shift rules and payments in relation to Caretakers.
2. Cover for holiday periods is compensated on the basis of time-off in lieu. The school had operated a flexible arrangement in that it had allowed the Caretakers to manage this arrangement between them subject to the required cover being provided.
3. Supervision and call-out allowance are part of a Caretakers normal duties. Caretakers are paid a call-out allowance on the basis of three hours at double pay for each call out.
DECISION:
The Court confirms the Right's Commissioners Recommendation in this case and disallows the worker's appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd April 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.