FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Compensation for loss of Overtime at Raheen Stores
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Management and the Trade Union in relation to a claim for compensation for loss of overtime. The Union is seeking the agreed formula for the loss of the overtime which it claims was regular and rostered and as such qualifies for compensation under the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (PSA). Management contends that the overtime in question was not regular and rostered and as a result does not meet the criteria under the PSA for compensation.
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 15th April 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th September 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The workers carried out the overtime at the request of management to facilitate the efficient operation of the Raheen Stores. This overtime was necessary as many staff had left the organisation and had not been replaced. Given that the overtime in question was regular and rostered the workers should be compensated in line with the terms of the PSA.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The overtime in question was introduced for a short period of time and was optional. The overtime was no longer required when management reduced its delivery frequency at the Raheen Stores. In the circumstances management does not accept that the payment of compensation is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the six workers in the Procurement Section of the HSE in Raheen in the Mid-West Region for compensation for loss of overtime earnings. The Union submitted that the overtime was regular and rostered and therefore should be compensated for in line with the terms of the formula agreed under the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (PSA).
The HSE Management stated that the reduction in overtime came about as a result of the introduction of revised authorisation levels, greater budgetary controls and reduction in frequency of deliveries. It stated that while there was a reduction, overtime had not been eliminated and in any event it had not been regular and rostered as contented for by the compensation formula.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that while the Claimants suffered a substantial drop in overtime earnings after 2012 due to the changes made by Management, the overtime previously worked while regularly worked by the Claimants, it could not be classified as contractual overtime and did not meet the test of regular and rostered overtime, the reduction of which would normally attract compensation.
Therefore, the Court does not recommend in favour of concession of the Union’s claim for application of the PSA compensation formula.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th October 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.