FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KILKENNY BOROUGH COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - 4 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August 2008 the Government instructed local authorities that they were obliged to provide for a number of saving measures in their budgets. A number of areas were identified where cuts could be implemented including premium payments and overtime. This case concerns a claim by four Grass Cutters employed by the Council whose hours of overtime have been reduced resulting in a loss of income and a reduction in their future pension entitlements. Compensation for this loss was expected in the form of a buy-out but this is not forthcoming as the Council claim that to do so would not only be untenable financially but would open the flood gates for other similar claims.
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 29th July, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th September, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A precedent was set last year when a colleague of the Workers concerned received compensation of more than twice his annual income loss in 2008.
2. Management is being opportunistic in refusing to implement the precedent they set in 2008 thus dividing a group of Workers.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the directive issued the Council must eliminate all non-essential overtime, the required cut of 3% in payroll costs cannot be compensated for as the accounts need to balance. If compensation was paid it would only lead to further spending adjustment measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case the Court is satisfied that there is merit in the case submitted by the Union side. The loss of overtime suffered by this group of Workers was far in excess of the reduction proposed as fair and proportionate by the County Manager in his letter to all staff in December 2008. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Workers concerned should accept a cut in the level of their overtime consistent with that proposed in the December letter and that they be compensated at the rate of 1.5 times the annual loss for the remainder of the regular rostered overtime that was removed from them at that time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
4th. October, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.