FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Outsourcing of Security Function (Moorepark).
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Teagasc in relation to compensation for loss of overtime.
Security Duties at Teagasc's Moorepark Research Centre had been carried out on a part-time basis by two technicians for a period of nearly 15 years. The technicians were paid overtime at their appropriate rate of pay. In 2003, an internal Audit report highlighted the inefficiencies of this service in that the cost of the overtime to the technicians was far greater than was appropriate to the work being performed.
This arrangement ceased in 2004 when the organisation contracted out it's security service to provide for full time security cover.
The Union are claiming compensation for the loss of the overtime on the basis that it had been a condition of employment for nearly fifteen years and was unilaterally removed by Management in Teagasc. Management's position is that the removal of this arrangement was based on the necessity to provide a more professional and cost efficient service .
The dispute 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 2nd February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th May, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Security service was carried out for nearly 15 years. During this time there was never a security breach at the facility. It is unacceptable that this system be changed without adequate compensation.
2. Due to the significant loss in earnings, compensation of two years loss of overtime earnings paid over a four year period is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The provision of security services by the technicians did not make financial sense. When the inefficiencies were identified in the Internal Audit, Management had no choice but to implement a more cost efficient and professional way of providing security for the premises.
2. Compensation is inappropriate in the circumstances as one of the technicians is employed in a grade that does not attract overtime payments, while the other technician may attract alternative overtime arrangements appropriate to his current position.
3. The claimants benefited from the previous situation over many years by being paid at a rate which was much higher than appropriate to the work being carried out.
RECOMMENDATION:
In 2004 when the organisation contracted out its security arrangements at the Moorepark Research Centre to provide for full time security cover, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of two technicians seeking compensation for the loss of overtime earnings. The technicians had been providing security cover on a part time basis for a period of nearly fifteen years, being paid overtime at their appropriate rate of pay.
The Union sought two years loss, phased out over a four-year period, due to the significant drop in earnings suffered by the claimants.
Management referred the Court to the organisation’s difficult financial state and the general restructuring and cost saving initiatives which have taken place, including the necessity to provide for the security needs of the centre on a more cost efficient and professional basis. It saw no merit in the claim as the workers concerned were paid a far higher rate than was appropriate to the work being performed. In addition, one of the technicians is on a new grade, which no longer attracts overtime payments, whereas it will continue to be possible for the second technician to secure alternative overtime payments.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view the loss of earnings incurred by the technicians was in the context of the overall restructuring and cost saving initiatives undertaken by the orgainisation. This coupled with the change of grade of one technician and the possibility of continued overtime by the second technician, leads the Court to find that there is no merit in the claim for compensation for the loss of these earnings. Accordingly, the Court rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.