ADJ-00015507

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Local Government Authority worker

A Local Government Authority

Representatives

Brendan O Sullivan BATU

Local authority manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00020121-001

02/07/2018

The Complainant works as a foreman in a local authority and reports for work 30 minutes early each day to open the depot for the general workforce. This arrangement has been in place since the Complainant transferred to the resent depot in 2009.

In January 2016 the Respondent local authority stopped paying this overtime and introduced a roster system in which the Complainant would only have to arrive early one week in every three weeks.

The complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission on 2nd July 2018.

Background.

1.       The Complainant is employed as a foreman in the housing maintenance department of a local authority.

2.       During 2009 the Complainant was advised that he was to be transferred from one depot to the housing maintenance depot.

3.       On arrival at the housing maintenance depot the Complainant was advised that in addition to his standard pay that he would be paid an additional half hour pay per day at the overtime rate. The payment the Complainant was being aid was in line with what his foremen colleagues were already receiving.

4.       This long-established payment was stopped during 2016 without consultation or agreement with the Complainant or his trade union.

5.       The Complainant’s trade union raised the issue management through the union group. A meeting was held with the HR Department and as agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission for Adjudication.

Arguments.

1.       The payment was confirmed as part and parcel of the Complainant’s conditions of employment when he commenced employment at the housing maintenance depot in 2009.

2.       The decision by the Respondent HR Department to alter the Complainant’s conditions of employment without consultation or his consent is unacceptable and wrong.

3.       The Respondent’s action has caused financial hardship and distress to the Complainant.

Conclusion.

1.       The actions of the Respondent HR Department are not in line with good industrial relations practice or fair procedures and therefore the following is being requested:

·         Restoration of the Complainant’s conditions of employment as applied during 2009 – 2016.

·         Backdating of the deducted payments

·         Compensation / Interest on lost payments to act as a deterrent for any further violations.

Background to the issue of the reduction in the Complainant’s overtime.

Information provided by the inspector in housing maintenance confirms that there was a local arrangement in place since before 2009 whereby three foremen in the depot were paid 30 minutes overtime, paid at double time, for reporting to work 30 minutes before standard working time. It is believed this was in place so the depot would be open and ready for the workforce arriving. The Complainant transferred to this depot in 2009. An acting foreman position became available soon after and this was offered to the Complainant and he accepted. As a foreman he was included in the arrangement re early morning overtime as previously referred to.

In late 2015 one of the foremen was being transferred from this depot to another depot. The regime in the new depot was that each of the three foremen there was on a roster whereby they reported for work 30 minutes early one week in three. This is the general arrangement in depots as there is no need for more than one employee per depot to open prior to the arrival of the general workforce. 

Due to the transfer of the foreman out of the housing maintenance depot the local arrangement came to the attention of the hosing maintenance administration section. It was decided that there was no justification for the continuance of the arrangement and a similar regime as exists in the other depots was put in place whereby the three foremen were put on a roster and now open the depot one week in three. This change took place in January 2016. It means the Complainant only receives 2.5 hours overtime per week at double time once every three weeks whereas previously he received it every week.

 Resolution Proposal.

The Complainant’s union representative requested a meeting to discuss this reduction  and this meeting was held on 6th September 2017.

It was accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant had been paid this overtime for a number of years and that he had suffered a loss of earnings. An offer was made to him that he would be paid loss of earnings compensation at the rate of 1.5 times the annual loss. This formula is in line with a number of Labour Court recommendations in the recent past and has also been used by the Respondent when the need has arisen.

The Complainant and his union representative were unwilling to accept this and stated that they required nothing less than full reinstatement of the original arrangement. It was made clear by the Respondent that this could not be justified as there was no need for more than one employee to open the depot daily.

 Conclusion.

The Respondent accepts that a local arrangement was in place. When this came to the attention of Management it was decided to discontinue the practice as paying three foremen to perform the same duty each morning could not be justified and represented a waste of public funds. Also, it was an anomaly that did not exist in other depots where, in general, three staff rostered on one week in three to perform the same duty. 

I have listened carefully to both parties in this dispute and cannot find a justifiable reason for three foremen to arrive at work thirty minutes early each day to open a depot, a duty that can be performed and is performed by one person in other similar depots.

The Respondent has, quite correctly, pointed to the fact that all costs incurred by local authorities must be paid from public funds. Common sense dictates that this practice, three men reporting to work early to carryout work that can be done by one person, cannot continue.

My recommendation is that the Complainant should accept the offer from the Respondent and that the Respondent make the payment without delay.

Recommendation as outlined above.

Compensation for loss of earnings.