FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIMERICK CITY & COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No:- r-138189-ir-13/GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No:- r-138189-ir-13/GC. The issue concerns the inclusion of regular and rostered overtime in the worker's retirement lump sum and pension payments. The Employer contends that the overtime in question was optional and does not qualify for superannuation purposes as provided for in the appropriate circular (S12/91). The Union contends that the overtime was regular and rostered and was compulsory in nature. In those circumstances the overtime meets the criteria and should have been included in the worker's retirement lump sum and pension payments.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 9th June 2014. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the overtime in question which was included in a comparable worker's superannuation payments who had the same terms and conditions of employment as the claimant be applied in this case also.
On the 18th June 2014 the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22nd October 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The overtime in question was not voluntary. It was part of the workers terms and conditions of employment and he was rostered to carry out the work in question. If he did not carry out the work as rostered he would have been removed from the roster and the work would have been assigned to another worker. As the overtime was regular rostered and compulsory, it complied with the provisions of the appropriate circular and should have been included in the workers retirement lump sum and subsequent pension payments.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management does not accept that the overtime in question was compulsory. It was part of the work of the section that the worker was assigned to and if he did not want to do it or was unavailable to do it, there was no obligation on him. Management contends that the provisions of the circular are clear and that the worker did not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion of overtime for superannuation purposes.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court, in the unique circumstances of this case, upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and decides accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
14th November 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.