FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - NINE WATER CARETAKERS (REPRESENTED BY CONNECT TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Time- off in lieu (TOIL ) compensation claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20 August 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 October 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking compensation for hours claimed under TOIL.
2. The Union indicated that these were hours worked that are owed to their Members.
3. The Union submitted that their Members kept diaries of the hours worked and also submitted time sheets that reflected the hours worked.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer’s position is that there is no evidence to substantiate the Union’s claim in full.
2. The Employer submitted that they only became aware of this claim in 2015 and that they only have records going back to 2013.
3. The Employer also submitted that the time sheets they hold show a significantly smaller figure for TOIL hours accumulated by the Workers than is being claimed by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues in dispute between the parties concerns payment for time-off in lieu “TOIL” from 2009 to 31st December 2015. The Union confirmed to the Court that no issue arises in relation to arrears of TOIL for the period 01/01/2016 to date.
It is the Union’s submission that their members kept a diary of the hours worked and also submitted time sheets that reflected the hours worked. The Union confirmed that although their claim only related to a period commencing in 2009 the figures did include a “carryover” figure into 2009. It was agreed by the parties that this claim referred to nine named workers.
It is the Employer’s submission that they only became aware of this claim in 2015 and that they only have records going back to 2013. It is the Employer’s submission that the time sheets they hold show a significantly smaller figure for TOIL hours accumulated by the Workers than is being claimed by the Union. The Employer also told the court that there were differences between Union and the Employer in relation to the value of a TOIL day and also in relation to what in the relevant period constituted a normal working day.
The Court having listened carefully to the submissions of both parties recommends that the Employer pays a sum of €75,000 to be divided between the nine workers in a manner to be agreed by the Workers.
The Court so recommends .
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
MK______________________
14 November 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.