FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to the current economic climate the Government has introduced spending measures which includes an obligation to implement a cut in the pay-roll costs of all Local Authorities of 3%. This dispute involves a Worker in the Housing Section of Carlow County Council that transferred in from the Sewerage Plant under an agreed remuneration package in 2003. The agreement included guaranteed overtime which is now cut, the Worker and his Union have always considered this overtime as part of his basic wages and therefore ought to be exempted under the pay-role cuts.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th May, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant transferred in 2003 from Mortarstown Sewerage Treatment Plant to the Housing Section in Carlow Town Council. As part of the transfer it was agreed that he be paid 4 hours overtime each week on a "regular rostered, assured and guaranteed basis". Management withdrew this element of the agreement effective from 21st January, 2009.
2. These 4 hours are fundamental to the remuneration package which was structured to help facilitate the Claimant in his re-location to the Housing Section.
3.The agreement should be honoured by Management which was freely entered into with the Union, or alternatively enter into negotiations in order to compensate the Claimant for his substantial loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Government has imposed an obligation on all Local Authorities to implement a saving of 3% on their pay-roll costs.
2. One of the areas identified was the reduction of premium pay and overtime. On 16th December, 2008 the Council met with the Union locally in order to outline the financial situation and inform them that cuts in overtime were to be implemented as and from 1st January, 2009.
3.The Council has had to make decisions in relation to meeting its budgetary limitations and has complied with the nationally agreed framework while achieving these savings. Concession of this claim could lead to knock-on effects not only in Carlow but in other Local Authorities whose overtime has also been reduced or eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that an agreement was concluded between the Council and the Union which provided that the Claimant would receive four hours overtime"assured and guaranteed to him each week".This agreement was concluded in consideration of the Claimant agreeing to relocate within the Council. The language of the agreement is quite emphatic and provides the Claimant with a contractual entitlement to overtime without limitation as to duration. This agreement is a formal collective agreement which is binding on the parties until it is renegotiated.
The Court fully accepts that the Council is required to effect savings and that the reduction in overtime is an agreed appropriate means of achieving the required savings. However, the existence of this agreement places the overtime worked by the Claimant is in an exceptional if not a unique category.
In these exceptional circumstances the Court believes that it would not be reasonable to discontinue the overtime in issue. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the terms of the 2003 agreement should continue to apply unless and until it is voluntarily renegotiated.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to make it clear that this recommendation is made having regard to the exceptional circumstances pertaining in this case. It is not intended to have any broader application and should not be replied upon or quoted in support of any other claim in this or any other employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th September, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.