FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY L.G.M.S.B.) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for additional hours worked.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the County Council in 1976. In 1994 she applied for an was granted a job sharing arrangement. She worked the job sharing arrangement, mornings only, from September 1994 until April 1998. The hours worked were from 9.15 to 1.00pm. She did not have a job sharing partner, the Council facilitated her with this arrangement. A job sharers work liability was 17.5 hours a week.
Having become aware of the fact that she was working in excess of 17.5 hours a week the worker raised the matter with the Council by way of letter in October 2003. The Union, on behalf of the worker, raised the matter with the Council in December 2003 and again in January and February 2004.
The matter could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Council have applied the job sharing scheme in an incorrect and unfair fashion.
2. The worker has worked in the order of the equivalent of 6 weeks duration in excess of her liability under the job sharing scheme and should be compensated for this.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Thematter should have been raised by the worker during her period of job sharing when it could have been resolved.
2.When the matter did come to light the Council amended the attendance pattern for job sharers working mornings only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court does not see justification in the claim for compensation equating to 6 weeks leave. The Court is satisfied that the hours worked by the claimant were as agreed between the parties for the arrangement concerned at the time. The Court notes that no difficulties were raised for the duration of the arrangement. Had difficulties been raised it would have been possible to rectify the situation at the time.
The Court notes that Council have since reduced the hours of work for this arrangement.
In an effort to resolve the dispute between the parties the Council offered two days leave as a final once-off gesture. The Court recommends that this offer should be increased to three days in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd April, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.