FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AOC SOLICITORS) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00031232 CA-00040502
in keeping with parallel and equally valued Policies and Staff movement Procedures (as exhibited for example in the supporting paperwork) as negotiated with the respective Staff Associations and Trade Unions.
natural expectation, in view of his impending retirement, of remaining in his long-standing position.
unsullied. There is no “Uisce faoi talamh” in the entire process.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 January 2023.
The Appellant has confirmed to the Court that the matter can, at this stage, be resolved by a resolution of matters related to outstanding claims for (a) loss of overtime, and (b) payment for overtime worked. In the event that these matters are resolved the Appellant’s intentions are such as to mean the Court need not address any dispute as regards a transfer across departments which occurred in 2020. In these circumstances the Court has examined closely the dispute in relation to overtime matters. It appears that, insofar as the Appellant has made a claim for loss of earnings arising from his transfer across Departments, both parties are agreed that the loss should be dealt with in accordance with the arrangements set out as part of the Haddington Road Agreement. In summary, those arrangements provide (a) for a comparison, in the manner set out in the arrangements, of overtime earned before implementation of a change with overtime earned following implementation of that change, (b) that any difference between those two figures is the quantum of loss arising from implementation of a change and (c) the quantum of loss so established is used to calculate compensation to be paid at the rate of 1.5 times the annual loss. The detailed formula for the before and after calculation periods and arrangements to calculate compensation based on a comparison of both are known to the parties. For various reasons, the claim for compensation for loss suffered by the Appellant, which was set out approximately two years before the hearing of the Court, has not been paid. The Court notes that the Council has a relatively minor disagreement with the figure claimed by the Appellant to be the amount of overtime he earned in the period before implementation of the change but also notes that the Council was not in a position, notwithstanding the lapse of time, to provide the Court with its own calculation of that amount. The Court in those circumstances recommends:
The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary. |