LCR22366

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY LGMA)

- AND -

30 GRITTING CREW DRIVERS & HELPERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Compensation sought for loss of regular, rostered, mandatory overtime in line with Public Service Agreements

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12 March 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 11 February 2021.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union claims that the Council has not complied with the mechanism for loss of earnings as provided for under the Public Service Agreement .

2. The Union estimates that the claim equates to €3,000 per worker based on averages for 2010, 2011 & 2012.

3. The Union claims that the issue is based on loss of earnings and is not cost increasing.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer maintains that an agreement regarding restructuring was agreed with the Union in 2011.

2.The Employer claimsthat the agreement did not provide for compensation for loss.

3. The Employer states that this will be a cost increasing claim.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Union is seeking a loss of earnings payment arising from a loss of overtime associated with a restructuring of road gritting duties. While the Union submissions also sought restoration of previous gritting payments it was the Employers position that this was not discussed at Conciliation. The referral to the Court from Conciliation was only in respect of loss of earnings therefore, that is the only issue properly before the Court.

It is the Unions submission that in 2011 the parties reached an agreement in relation to reducing costs for SDCC roads gritting. The two proposals on the table at the time were 1) the removal of the helper from the truck or 2) reduction in the hours paid to staff for the gritting. The Union agreed to the reduction in the hours paid and are now seeking that the Workers be paid compensation for loss of earnings.

It is the Employer’s submission that the agreement reached was part of the cost saving measures required under the Public Service agreement 2010-2014. The Workers volunteer to do the gritting work and are paid the agreed amount. The overtime is not regular rostered overtime and does not qualify for a loss of earnings payment. The agreement reached makes no mention of compensation for loss of earnings.

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and the wording of the agreement that was reached between the parties in 2011 notes that the agreement states “Local discussions between SIPTU and management have resulted in the following cost savings measures been implemented with effect from Monday the 24^thOctober 2021.The agreement then goes on to list the measures . The agreement does not contain any reference to compensation for loss of earnings. The Court finds there is no basis for the Unions loss of earnings claim and the claim must fail.

The Court so Recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.