INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-037243-Ir-05/TB.
2. The worker is employed by the HSE North West as a Maintenance Foreman. The Union's case is that in 1997 the Employer set up a refuse service on Saturdays comprised of two employees who were supervised by the worker concerned. The Saturday work finished in 2003. From March 2003 to March 2004 the worker was employed in the laundry on general maintenance and on-call. Both of these duties were paid at overtime. The Union is seeking that the worker should be compensated for his loss of overtime. The Employer's view is that the overtime had to cease due to budgetary restraints.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his Recommendation issued on the15th March, 2006, as follows:-
"Based on the evidence at the hearing I recommend that the claimant be paid €1500 in settlement of this dispute".
The worker appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 24th of April, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of March, 2007, in Sligo.
3. 1. One of the employees involved in the overtime still receives a Boilerman's wages even though he is still being supervisedas a General Operative by the worker concerned . Both of the worker's co-workers were compensated for their loss of overtime. The worker concerned feels discriminated against because of this.
4. 1. The Hospital Administrator indicated that the overtime should cease as it was unnecessary and wasteful.
2. The worker's overtime has not ceased. He has continued to receive some overtime for the last few years. He was also compensated in the past for loss of overtime.
On the information provided to the Court it is clear that the Claimant will suffer a loss of earnings in consequence of the abolition of the previous arrangements on guaranteed overtime. While the Claimant is entitled to fair compensation for this loss, his circumstances are different to those of others who received ongoing compensation in that he will continue to work some overtime.
In the circumstances the Court is of the view that the fairest approach in this case is to pay the Claimant compensation in an amount equal to twice the difference between his average annual overtime earnings calculated by reference to 2005 and 2006 and his annual overtime earnings under the old arrangement.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is adjusted accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th March, 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.