FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations r-124140-ir-12/EH & r-124142-ir-12/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Workers for compensation for the loss of overtime. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 17th October, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I do not find any basis upon which I could recommend concession of this claim."
On the 5th November, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th February, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have worked this overtime for many years.
2. This overtime was regular and rostered.
3.The Workers should be compensated in accordance with the terms of the Public Service Agreement, 2010-2014.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Thisad hocovertime was associated with and paid for by major sporting and cultural events organised by third parties.
2.This overtime was pooled and voluntary.
3.Concession of this claim is not appropriate in circumstances where this overtime was neither regular nor rostered.
DECISION:
The appeal before the Court of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation was made by the Union on behalf of two Claimants who sought compensation for the loss of regular and rostered overtime. The Rights Commissioner found no basis upon which to recommend concession of the claim and consequently rejected the claim.
The Union submitted that the Claimants had worked four hours per week, regular and rostered overtime, from 2005 until 2009 in one case and from 2006 until 2009 in the second case.
The Council accepted that overtime earnings had reduced for the Claimants over the past few years, however, it did not accept that such overtime could be characterised as regular and rostered overtime. It stated that since 2006 overtime has been provided on a pool basis, where employees may volunteer to work overtime.
Details of the overtime earnings for the Claimants was provided by the Council to the Court. This information demonstrated that since 2006 both the number of weeks when overtime was worked and the overtime earnings had fluctuated considerably over the period. Furthermore, it demonstrates that overtime earnings continue to be earned.
Having considered the position of both sides the Court is not satisfied that the overtime in issue was regular or rostered, nor is the Court satisfied that it was worked on a compulsory/contractual basis over a sustained period of time.
On that basis the Court does not recommend concession of the claim for compensation and upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th March, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.