FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Loss of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Dublin City Council and UNITE in relation to a claim for compensation following changes to the on call/call out arrangements in the Council's emergency after hours plumbing services. The Union is seeking payment of the appropriate compensation for loss of earnings in the Local Authority sector (1.5 times the annual loss). Management rejects the Union's claim as presented. It contends the losses in question do not meet the appropriate criteria for such compensation .
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd July 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The workers have incurred significant losses of earnings as a result of changes to the on call/ call out arrangements previously in place. The agreed compensation in such circumstances is 1.5 times the annual loss. The Union is seeking compensation based on the identified losses in 2010. The Union's position is that the claim as presented is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The overtime for which compensation is being sought was not regular,rostered or compulsory. As a result it does not meet the criteria for the level of compensation sought. In addition, concession of the Union's claim would inevitably lead to repercussive claims in the sector which would be cost prohibitive and unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court relates to a claim for compensation for loss of an on-call allowance and related overtime earnings on behalf of nine of the Union’s members. The Respondent put a new, more cost-efficient after-hours emergency plumbing service in place in 2009-10 as a consequence of which the nine members in question were no longer required to operate the after-hours emergency services for the Respondent’s social housing tenants.
The Parties attempted to resolve the issue with the assistance of the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. In the course of that process, the Respondent offered to make a once-off ex gratia payment to 8 of the nine workers, in full and final settlement of their claim and conditional on the workers and the Union accepting the new structure for the delivery of the after-hours service. The ex gratia payment was graduated over 4 bands, with the quantum offered to each individual being linked to that person’s loss of overtime earnings in 2008 (the last full year in which the previous emergency plumbing system was in operation). The Respondent made a revised offer at a second Labour Relations conciliation conference on 16 June 2015.
Having considered the Parties’ detailed submissions, the Court recommends that the Respondent’s revised offer of 16 June 2015 be increased by €500.00 each in respect of Categories 2 to 4 inclusive on condition that the Claimants and the Union accept that the new shift arrangement for the delivery of the after-hours service is fully operational and permanent and that these payments are accepted in full and final settlement of the within claims.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
8th October 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.