FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GALWAY CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - 4 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation's No's R-127013/127016/127018/127012-Ir-12/Mh
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation's No's r-127013/127016/127018/127012-Ir-12/MH. The issue relates to a claim for compensation as a result of the cessation of Saturday overtime. The parties are in dispute in relation to whether compensation is payable to the workers. The Union is seeking compensation of 1.5 times the annual loss in line with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. Management refutes the Union's claim on the basis that the overtime for which the compensation is being sought ceased in 2009 and no claim was formally made until 2012.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 6th March 2015 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On the 23rd March 2015, the workers 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 September 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management contends that the Union lodged the claim in 2012. This is incorrect. The Union raised the issue formally as far back as 2009 which has not been acknowledged by Management. Given the losses incurred by the workers, the Union's claim in line with the provisions of the PSA 2010 - 2014 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
2 It is acknowledged that one of the workers is no longer employed by Galway County Council. As the worker was employed at the time of the initial referral to the Council and remained in its employment until 2013, the Union contends he should also be included in the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management has no record of a claim being formally lodged in 2009 and the Union is unable to provide a copy of same. Notwithstanding Management's assertions that compensation is unwarranted, the claim was formally lodged and received in 2012.
2 Concession of the Union's claim would inevitably lead to repercussive claims and would also have national implications for other worker's who previously incurred a loss of overtime earnings.
DECISION:
The Court finds that Mr Ryan resigned his position with the Council in 2013 and cannot sustain an industrial relations claim beyond that date unless it was agreed he could do so at the time of his resignation.
In this case no such agreement was reached. Accordingly the Court finds that Mr Ryan’s appeal is not well founded and decides accordingly.
As regards the other three claimants the Court, having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute and noting the unique circumstances of this case finds that there is some merit in the Union’s claim. Taking all of the relevant circumstances into account the Court finds that both the Claimants and the City Council are equally responsible for the manner in which this matter was progressed and should share the consequences of that responsibility. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Council should pay the Claimants the standard public service loss of earnings formula in respect of 50% of the loss they each incurred as a result of the reduction in the level of regular rostered overtime they worked in 2009 as compared with 2008.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th October 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.