INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
HSE MID WEST
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Compensation for loss of earnings.
2. This dispute concerns a claim for compensation for loss of earnings due to a reduction in overtime. This 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 2nd February, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th April, 2015.
3 1The overtime was an integral part of the working week.
2The Workers have suffered a considerable loss of income.
3The Workers should be compensated at the rate of twice their annual loss.
4 1The overtime was not rostered or compulsory.
2The overtime was not a condition of employment or pensionable.
3.Concession of this claim would create a significant precedent.
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the nine named workers based in the Central Workshop in St. Joseph’s Hospital Limerick for compensation for loss of overtime earnings which came about due to a reduction in the number of projects and developments undertaken by the HSE Mid-West during the period of the recession. The Union sought compensation for the substantial loss of earnings which resulted from the employer’s decision to discontinue the provision of regular overtime.
Management rejected the claim on the basis that the overtime worked while regular was not rostered and stated that at all times it was voluntary and unrostered.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that while the Claimants suffered a substantial drop in overtime earnings after 2009 the overtime previously worked, while regularly worked by the Claimants, could not be classified as contractual overtime and did not meet the test of regular and rostered overtime, the reduction of which would normally attract compensation.
Therefore, the Court does not recommend in favour of concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th April, 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.