FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss Of Saturday Premium
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two of its members arising out of the implementation of a restructuring agreement reached between the parties. Following on from Labour Court Recommendation No. 1549 discussions took place between the parties to identify areas where cost savings could be made. These included discontinuing the payment of overtime for Saturday working. The Union is seeking adequate compensation for the consequent loss of earnings for its members. The Employer contends that it implemented necessary cost reductions in order to meet budgetary limitations.
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 could not be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th November, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The workers have moved and shown flexibility to facilitate the Council's requests. The Agreement reached accepts that these workers suffered a loss. The workers have a reasonable expectation that the Council will engage with a view to finding an acceptable solution to the loss.
2 This is the only outstanding issue in respect of the Agreement that was put in place and which is operating successfully. The Union are seeking compensation in the amount of 3 times the annual loss incurred by each worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The actions taken by the Council were necessary to address a serious financial situation.. The Council cannot put the future of other staff in jeopardy in order to make compensation payments for a small group.
2 Any concession of this claim would lead to knock on claims from other employees who have had their overtime reduced or eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances of this case the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th November, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.