FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Loss Of Overtime
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim made by the Union on behalf of their members is for compensation for loss of earnings since the cessation of public lighting surveys. The involvement of the workers concerned with the twice yearly survey originated in 1970. The survey normally involved 60 hours of overtime per team of two workers twice a year. A week before the October 2006 survey was to be carried out, the workers were told their services were no longer required for the survey. There was no consultation with the workers on this matter. The Union lodged a claim with the council for three times the yearly loss of overtime paid. The Council contend that the workers involved were informed by the Senior Engineer due to the introduction of new technology. The Council has paid twice the annual loss only in situations where earnings were clearly regular and recurring. The Council do not believe that to be the situation here.
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 October, 2007. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th November, 2007
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The surveys were carried out twice yearly until 2005 when the second survey was deferred to January 2006 for budgetary reasons. The first survey in 2006 was carried out as usual and ceased without notice one week in advance of the October survey.
2 No other grades of worker have carried out the surveys. Technicians consider the work to be technicians work because of the need for their expertise and qualifications.
3 The overtime associated with the surveys was regular and recurring for 37 years and became an integral part of the normal work of the Technicians.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The work the Technicians were carrying out was not part of their core work. This is further reinforced by the fact that none of the Technicians who carried out the work recently were assigned to the Traffic Division.
2 The survey was not part of their regular work schedule. It was carried out twice early on an overtime basis in the evenings over a period of four weeks. In recent years the survey frequency has been more like once a year.
3 The number to Technicians involved in the survey has varied from the original figure of four to six in more recent times.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission and figures placed before it, the Court recommends that the employers offer and the Union accept a payment of €4500 per person in full and final settlement of the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.