FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's decision to restructure the Caretaker function, which resulted in the Worker losing his weekly five hours overtime. SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker, referred this case to the Labour Court on 23th February, 2011, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th February, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has worked this regular and rostered overtime since 1988.
2.The Employer cut the Worker's pay without prior consultation.
3.The Worker has suffered serious financial loss and should be compensated accordingly.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer and the Union agreed on a restructuring of the Caretaker role.
2. It was agreed that payment for overtime would be replace with time-off in lieu.
3.The Employer does not have the financial resources to pay compensation for loss of overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
The court is satisfied that an agreement was entered into between the Union and the Council on the restructuring of the caretaking function. The loss of overtime now in issue was an inevitable and foreseeable consequence of the agreement. Nonetheless the Claimant is in an anomalous position vis-a-vis another worker.
As there is no express provision in the agreement covering the Claimant's position the parties should now enter into discussions with a view to reaching agreement on addressing this anomaly.
The court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th March, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.