FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2002 Teagasc was forced to implement a rationalisation programme as a result of a reduction of €15 million in Grant Aid. In 2005 the Teagasc centre in Ballinamore, Co Leitrim closed and the employees transferred to the Teagasc centre in Ballyhaise, Co Cavan, a distance of about 30 miles.
Following a number of difficulties surrounding their relocation to Ballyhaise the four staff members involved in this claim agreed to relocate subject to a number of conditions agreed at a conciliation conference on 17th February 2005. As part of that conciliation agreement it was agreed that a claim for loss of overtime earnings could be pursued separately.
The claim for loss of overtime earnings was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in September 2007. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th December, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The transfer of the Unions' members from Ballinamore to Ballyhaise arose from a unilateral decision of Teagasc to close the Ballinamore centre. It was not a situation in which the Workers sought such a transfer.
2.Each of the Workers had consistent roster arrangements throughout their employment at Ballinamore which required Saturday and Sunday regular rostering for overtime working on a continuous basis. The overtime working remuneration was a consistent part of their financial income on a weekly basis.
3. The Union maintains that the Employers expectation that the Workers can avail of overtime arrangements at Ballyhaise is unreasonable and unrealistic in the circumstances. Each Worker has an increased distance to travel to and from their present employment as compared to their employment at the Ballinamore centre.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Management maintains that the four Workers concerned have access to a minimum of 504 hours of overtime in Ballyhaise which they are refusing to work.
2. Management does not accept that any valid grounds exist for the payment of any compensation for loss of overtime earnings to the Workers. They were not given any commitments of guaranteed overtime earnings at Ballyhaise and there are no grounds on which the Workers could have expected to work overtime on an ongoing basis.
3. Management maintains that it would be inappropriate to compensate workers every time they were reassigned to different duties for any loss of overtime which might result, especially when the staff concerned were refusing to work overtime that was available to them.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim for compensation of loss of overtime earnings and time off in lieu, on behalf of 4 workers when the Teagasc centre in Ballinamore closed and they were transferred to Teagasc centre at Ballyhaise, a distance of approximately 30 miles. The Union quantified both the loss of earning and the time off in lieu arrangements in respect of each of the workers concerned.
Management disputed the claim and submitted that overtime at the weekend was also available at the Ballyhaise centre, and furthermore that they were compensated for the inconvenience involved in the relocation. The Union submitted that the expectation to avail of overtime at the Ballyhaise centre is unreasonable and unrealistic considering the increased distance required considerable travelling for two hours overtime in the morning and a further two hours in the evening.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the terms of conditions of employment applicable at the Ballinamore centre required the workers to work regular and rostered overtime at weekends and that this requirement was an essential component of their conditions of employment for more than 25 years. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that while overtime is available at weekends at the Ballyhaise centre, it is not an essential requirement. On that basis, the Court accepts that there has been a change to their conditions of employment and it can concur with the Union’s concerns over the distance involved.
Therefore, in all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that Teagasc should pay one and a half year’s compensation for the loss of earnings (not time off in lieu) incurred during the weekend regular and rostered overtime and this compensation should be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th April, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.