LCR23122

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Loss of Earnings Claim for Portering Staff

BACKGROUND:

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 28 November 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 February 2025.

Union's Arguments:

The Union argue that unilateral stopping of regular, rostered overtime payments led to a loss of earnings and prejudicial loss of pension accrual for workers. This loss should be address addressed by way of payment of monies.

Employer's Arguments:

The Employer argued that while the overtime was regular it was not rostered and was based on the week-to-week availability of the Portering Staff prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Employer argued that they cannot agree to pay overtime where the claimed overtime hours have not been worked and where no contractual entitlement for such payment arises.

DECISION:

Background to the Dispute

The within dispute relates to the rate at which thirteen portering staff employed at the SETU Waterford campus (‘the Workers’) were remunerated between March 2020 and March 2022, during the Pandemic period.

The Workers contend that their pay during that period did not include payment for established regular and rostered overtime of four hours at time and a half and 5 hours at double time (13 hours in total). The Workers also submitted that overtime in question is calculated for superannuation purposes.

It is submitted on behalf of the Employer that the overtime in question, although regular, is not rostered and is optional and, therefore, it was not under an obligation to continue payment in respect of it during the pandemic period when the Workers were either not required to attend on campus or attend for core hours only. The Employer submitted that it had sought instructions from the Department of Further and Higher Education in relation to the issue and had been verbally advised that the overtime in question was not payable. This advice had not been furnished in writing by the Department to the Employer.

Discussion and Recommendation

Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court finds that the Worker’s established work patterns include periods of regular and rostered overtime during term time, in the sense that that concept is widely understood from an industrial relations perspective. It follows, therefore, in the Court’s view, that the Workers’ claim should be conceded.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
ÁM	______________________
4th March 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.