FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LAOIS & OFFALY EDUCATION TRAINING BOARD (REPRESENTED BY GEAR�ID � BRÁDAIGH, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY CONWAY & KEARNEY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no ADJ-00001485.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim over the first refusal of overtime in the College.
- The Employer said the Worker has for some considerable time being offered first refusal on all overtime at the college. He was also offered overtime in a school closer to his home.
- The Worker said he is working overtime but that he is being given very short notice.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 29th June 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- There are two issues here that have formed the grievance of the complainant.
- 1.The loss of overtime earnings due to changes which came about in the relocation of the school of music and evening classes.
- I recommend that the complainant replies to the respondent’s offer to buy out the overtime. I recognise that the conditions placed on the offer by DES make it somewhat difficult, but the respondent should have a reply to that correspondence outstanding since 10thMarch 2010.
- 1.The loss of overtime earnings due to changes which came about in the relocation of the school of music and evening classes.
- There are two issues here that have formed the grievance of the complainant.
- 2. The complainant seeks to have the situation regarding overtime regularised and clarified, specifically in that the Principle should offer him “first refusal” to work overtime when the school requires to be closed in the evenings.
- I note the complainant’s contract of employment states that inter alia:
“To open and close the premises as directed by the responsible officer”
The responsible in this case is the Principle. I recommend that the Principle endeavours as far as possible in this case to give the complainant advance notice of the requirement to stay late. This in itself may solve the issue of offering the opportunity to work overtime to other staff. I note the respondent’s assertion that further opportunities to work overtime are likely to arise in the future and it is recommended that both parties work together to build trust which is needed for the complainant’s issues to be fully resolved.
- I note the complainant’s contract of employment states that inter alia:
- 2. The complainant seeks to have the situation regarding overtime regularised and clarified, specifically in that the Principle should offer him “first refusal” to work overtime when the school requires to be closed in the evenings.
The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 5th August 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd November 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The loss of overtime and the Saturday hours amount to €6,193.04.
2. He was assured that there would be enough opportunity throughout the year to make up the loss.
3. The Worker has an entitlement to be compensated at 1.5 times his loss of overtime as per the Public Service Agreement and this should not preclude him from securing overtime in the future.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Principal, as the responsible officer and having proper regard to the demands of cost-saving efficiencies, may decide himself to have a Cleaner who is still present on the premises lock up.
2. The Worker is now and has been for some considerable time offered first refusal on all overtime at the College. He is given advance notice of all events either directly or by the school calendar.
3. There has been no erosion of the Worker’s terms and conditions of employment; every effort has been made to accommodate him.
DECISION:
Background to the Dispute
The Worker is engaged as a Caretaker on a permanent, whole-time basis by the Respondent Education & Training Board (ETB). The Worker’s terms of employment clearly authorise the Respondent to assign him to one or more centres within its administrative area although he is principally assigned to the Respondent’s second-level college in Portlaoise.
Arrangements for the allocation of overtime hours to cover evening caretaking responsibilities across the Respondent’s various premises in Portlaoise changed in 2014 when the evening classes that had previously been run at the Community College were transferred to Portlaoise Further Education and Training (FET) Centre. As a consequence, the Respondent had a reduced requirement for evening caretaking work at the Community College and an increase requirement for same at the FET. The Worker was offered - but declined to accept – overtime hours at the FET Centre, which happens to be located closer to his home than the Community College. The Respondent by letter of 10 March 2015, in the alternative, offered to buy out, at 1.5 times the annual rate, the Worker’s loss consequent on the reduction of overtime hours available at the Community College. The Worker did not accept this offer.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Worker should accept the Respondent’s offer to provide him with overtime hours at the FET Centre. The Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
16th January, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.