FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERWAYS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim for loss of earnings by the Union on behalf of 19 members employed by Waterways Ireland. Waterways Ireland is a North/South implementation body established under the British Irish Agreement in 1999. In 2004 the Employer made a decision to change overtime arrangements. In 2007 a Labour Court hearing took place in relation to nine named individuals as a result of which the Union's members recieved compensation for loss of earnings. The Union is seeking an extension of Labour Court Recommendation No. 19148 to cover the 19 individuals in this claim. The Employer argues that the Union, at two separate meetings, confirmed that the original claim contained the full details of those affected.
On the 20th May, 2010, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2010.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The members concerned in this claim worked this overtime over a period of years, similar to their colleagues in the original claim. The argument over whether or not this overtime was regular and rostered and should therefore warrant compensation for its loss was dealt with in LCR19148.
2 The 19 members who are dealt with in this claim suffered exactly the same losses as their 9 named colleagues and had exactly the same expectations around their earnings. The Union believe it would be unfair not to compensate these members for simply failing to put their names forward at that time.
3 The Employer was aware that there was going to be a lot more of their employees affected by this cessation of regular overtime than the 9 named in the original claim. The nineteen members party to this claim had financial commitments based on the enhanced income from this overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Management has a duty and responsibility to ensure that budgets are met and that business is run in an efficient and cost effective way. It is clear that overtime working was excessive and unsustainable. Management took reasonable action in implementing a control system to ensure that overtime was appropriately managed.
2 There is still overtime work available and all the claimants named in this case continue to avail of overtime hours on a regular basis.
3 The repercussive effects of concession of this claim could amount to a total bill of over €2 million to the Employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having carefully considered the submission of both parties, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
4th November, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.