FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation For Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for loss of earnings and a delay in payment of compensation. In November, 2008, a number of staff transferred from Castlebar Waste Water Treatment Plant due to the privatisation of the operation of the plant. An a agreement was reached that the workers concerned would co-operate with the change and help in the training of the private contractor in operating the plant for approximately one month after they came on site. It is the Union's argument that the Council have failed to honour the agreement. The Council's position is that it is not in a position to fund the loss of earnings claim due to its current financial position.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th September, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th May, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker's concerned accepted the agreement in good faith and honoured their end of the agreement.
2 The Council have reneged on the compensation for the overtime part of the agreement. The Council ban on overtime was not implemented unitl May, 2009.
3 The delay in payment of compensation to some workers has left them paying levies which would not have applied if payment was made immediately on moving as set out in the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The actions taken by the Council are necessary to address the serious financial situation of the Council and to maintain its service to the public.
2 All other Council employees have had their overtime substantially reduced or eliminated and have not pursued claims for loss of earnings. No compensatable losses have occurred.
3 The Council acknowledges that there was a delay in making the relevant payments to workers. However, it is not responsible for taxation policy and had to apply proper tax law to the payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that a collective agreement was concluded between the parties which comprehensively dealt with the matters now before the court.
The agreement is perfectly clear. It provided that the workers concerned with the claim would cooperate with the privatisation of the Council's Water Treatment plant. In return the Council agreed to pay compensation for loss of earnings in respect to overtime and allowances. It is accepted that the workers fully delivered on their side of the bargain and that the Council derived considerable benefit from the agreement.
As a matter of good industrial relations practice parties should honour the agreements by which they are bound. The court can see no reason as to why that generally accepted principle should not apply in this case.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the agreement be fully honoured by the Council. The court does not recommend any alteration in the agreed terms .
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th May,2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.