LCR20046

SUBJECT:
1. Loss of overtime


BACKGROUND:

2. The claim by the Union is for a loss of overtime on behalf of 6 workers. The overtime consisted of 2 hours 4 times per week, 1 hour in the morning 2 times per week, and cover for Bank Holidays. The overtime ceased in early 2009. The Union estimates the total loss at €16,580 per annum per worker. It is seeking twice the annual loss but the Council's position is that it cannot afford to pay any compensation.

The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th September, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th April, 2011, in Kilkenny.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The loss of earnings has been significant for the workers concerned (the Union supplied details to the Court). There could also be a possible negative impact on the workers' pension entitlements. In the past the Labour Court has awarded twice the annual loss in similar circumstances.


COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Council has encountered significant difficulties in preparing annual budgets since 2003 and has had to implement major changes to deal with the reductions in recent years. In 2003 overtime was eliminated for all indoor staff and eliminated or reduced for outdoor staff. No compensation was paid to any of the office staff.

2. In 2008 the Council found that outsourcing the work offered very competitive prices and decided to use contractors from February, 2009. Any compensation to the workers concerned would have significant cost implications for the Council as other sections also lost regular overtime and could make similar claims.

RECOMMENDATION:

The dispute before the Court concerns a claim for compensation for loss of regular and rostered overtime earnings for 6 Fitters employed in the North Cork Area Garage. The overtime was worked for 2 hours four evenings per week and one hour in the mornings and on Public Holidays. The elimination of the overtime eliminated all overtime earnings for the Claimants (excluding emergency cover). The overtime ceased in February 2009 due to the Council’s budgetary restraints and in accordance with implementation of an agreement reached through the Local Authority National Partnership Advisory Group (LANPAG).

The Union submitted that the Claimants had worked the overtime on a regular and rostered basis and it sought twice the annual loss.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that compensation is warranted in this case. Having regard to the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014, the Court recommendsthat the compensation for actual loss of earnings arising from the new arrangements should be calculated on the basis of 1.5 times the actual loss.

In this case as the overtime ceased in February, 2009, over two years ago, the Court is of the view that it would be inappropriate to recommend a phasing arrangement and accordingly the Court recommends that the compensation payment should be paid from the date of acceptance of the Recommendation.

There was some dispute between the parties on the level of overtime earnings lost by each Claimant, the Court recommends that the parties should engage to establish the actual loss by comparing overtime earnings in a full twelve month period prior to its elimination in February 2009 with any overtime earnings in the same period post its elimination, in respect of each Claimant involved.

The Court so recommends.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
27th April, 2011______________________
CONDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.