FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R -075436-IR-08/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Council in 1983 and was appointed to his current position as Tar Depot Supervisor in June, 2002. The Council completed a new facility in Carigeen, Clonmel in 2008. At the same time the Council became aware that some employees, including the worker concerned, were in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, (the Act). In the worker's case it was as a result of working overtime at time plus one half for two hours and double time for one hour per day, totalling 54 hours for most weeks. The Council reduced the number of excess hours for all worker, including the claimant. The worker's case is that he has suffered a major decrease in his earnings as a result of the Council's decision.
The Union referred his case to a Right Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"It appears from the information supplied by the Council in correspondence dated July 21st 2009, a copy of which was supplied to the Union, that the claimant worked 2 hours per day overtime at time and half and 1 hour a day at double time prior to the relocation after a 39 hour week. He therefore was working 54 hours per week. I am ignoring one off or minor changes that occurred to this general pattern. Following the relocation he settled into a 1 hour per day double time overtime and then this changed on May 12th 2009 to 1.5 hours per day at double overtime. Assuming this is the go forward situation the claimant is working 46.5 hours per week and all overtime is paid at double time (according to the correspondence). Therefore, the claimant has dropped 7.5 hours per week to a 46.5 hour week of which only 1.5 hours is considerable as a loss given the maximum working week is 48 hours per week. This loss was all at time and a half. The claimant did work only 1 hour overtime per day in February, March and April 2009 but this changed to 1.5 per day in May as outlined above.
On the basis that the claimant continues to work 1.5 hours per day generally (seasonal business demands/variations excluded) I propose that the claimant be compensated a once off total amount of €3,500 as compensation for his loss of overtime. This award seeks to balance the conflicting positions of the parties and the current economic realities that every organisation is facing. If accepted by both parties, it is not to be used as precedent by either party in the future for any reason".
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th May, 2010, in Thurles.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker believes that the Rights Commissioner's award was too little. He calculates that his yearly loss of earning to be approximately €7,887.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council had no choice but to reduce the amount of overtime being worked by its employees. The worker is still working some overtime every day. The Council believes that the Union's estimation for the loss was incorrect.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are reasonable.
In these circumstance the Court affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and the worker's appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th May, 2010______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.