FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEITRIM CO. COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation For Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Union's claim for compensation for loss of overtime on behalf of two Workers. This 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 1st September, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd April, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have lost regular and rostered overtime.
2. There are many precedents for the payment of compensation for the loss of regular and rostered overtime.
3.The Union is seeking compensation of two and a half times the annual loss.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council is now operating in a different and challanging economic environment which has forced it toimplemented necessary cost reductions in order to meet its current budgetary limitations.
2. The Council's priority has been the maintenance of permanent full-time jobs while continuing to provide a service to the public.
3.The Council has acted fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
This claim is for compensation for loss of earnings for what the union contends was regular rostered overtime. The overtime in issue was discontinued in consequence of the implementation of an agreeement reached through the Local Authority National Partnership Advisory Group (LANPAG).
The union claims that it has concluded agreements with all Local Authorities in which it has members providing for compensation for losses incurred in similar circumstances to those pertaining in the present case. The Court was not furnished with copies of these agreements. The representative of the County Council was unaware of the agreements to which the union referred.
The Court is of the view that the union should now furnish the LGMSB with copies of the agreements upon which it relies relating to loss of regular rostered overtime since the LANPAG agreement was reached. The Council should review its position in light of these agreements should they establish a basis from the unions claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th June 2010______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.