FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Galway City Council (represented by the LGMA) and SIPTU in relation to a reduction in overtime payments to Gangers employed by the Council. The Union contends that 50% of the payment was stopped in 2009 and the remainder in August 2012. The Union contends that the work for which the payments were made continues and that the payments should be reinstated to 2009. Management's position is that the work for which the additional payments were made have been subsumed into the normal working day and should no longer be paid. Management has offered compensation in line with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 30th January 2013. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th May 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The payments in question should not have ceased. They were put in place to take account of additional work that was being done. The work continues to be done and the Union is seeking that the payments be retrospectively reinstated to the date of their cessation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The payments were in fact overtime payments for work that has been subsumed into the normal working day. Management cannot continue to pay these notional overtime payments in the current climate. It has, however, agreed to compensate for the loss at the agreed formula provided in the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court relates to a reduction in overtime payments to Gangers employed by the City Council and the eventual elimination of these payments.
The initial reduction in the payments was made in 2009. The payments ceased in 2011. The Council have offered to pay compensation in line with the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 in respect of the elimination of the amount payable at that time. The Council point out that the claim was first made on the 15th May 2012. In these circumstances it is not prepared to consider compensation for the reduction that occurred in 2009.
The Union contends that its members are continuing to perform extra duties in respect of which the overtime was paid. These extra duties, it was submitted include filling in timesheets and signing for overtime. The Council contends that that the duties in respect of which the overtime was paid ceased to be worked and that the duties have been subsumed in the normal working day of the staff concerned.
Following a request from the Court the parties submitted further information on the issues in dispute.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the additional information provided after the hearing, the Court is satisfied that while the matter was raised in 2009 a claim for compensation was not made until May 2012. In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claim in so far as it relates to the reduction in 2009.
In relation to the claim for the restoration of the payments which ceased in 2011, the Court is not satisfied that it was for work over an above that which is comprehended by the job description of the workers concerned. However the Court recommends that the elimination of the payments be compensated for at 1.5 times their annual value at the time of their elimination.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th June 2013______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.