Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86709 Case Number: LCR10872 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CO. CO. - and - ITGWU;FWUI |
Claim, on behalf of approximately forty domestic refuse workers for compensation for the loss of a day's pay due to a work stoppage.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the circumstances from
which this claim arises. If similar incidents were to occur in
the future it would not be disposed to accept that mere entry into
the depot would be sufficient to warrant payment. Having regard
to the manner in which work is organised, the Court is of the view
that the Council is correct in expecting vehicles to leave the
depot and proceed to do the duties appointed to them before making
payment.
However, since this appears to be the first occasion that such an
event occurred, and given the lack of experience of all concerned
as to how best to approach the problems arising, the Court in this
instance recommends that the Unions' claim be conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86709 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10872
CC861049 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10872
Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately forty domestic refuse
workers for compensation for the loss of a day's pay due to a work
stoppage.
Background:
2. On Monday, 19th May, 1986, pickets were placed on the gates of
Sandyford environment depot. At approximately 8.30 a.m. some
forty workers passed these pickets and went to the depot canteen.
Some waited there until 11.00 a.m. and then went home while others
waited until around 1.30 p.m. before leaving (normal finishing
time is approximately 2.00 p.m.). The Unions claim that as
manning levels were short, specific instructions were needed to
crew the trucks but Management never gave any. Management refutes
this and has stated that it twice gave instructions and they were
not carried out. At approximately 11.30 a.m. the shop steward
made representations to Management on behalf of thirteen workers
who stated they were willing to work. Management rejected this as
it claimed that there was no work available for them. The Unions
lodged a claim for a day's pay for thirteen of the men and three
hours' pay for 27 others. The Council rejected the claim and, on
the 18th June, 1986, the Unions referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on the 12th August but no agreement could be
reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
6th November, 1986, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The forty men who reported for work on the morning of
the 19th May, were not issued with specific
instructions. These were necessary on this occasion
because of the shortages in manning levels. There are
eleven vehicles, each with a crew of five and because
the full complement did not report for work the normal
crewing of vehicles was completely upset. In these
circumstances it was necessary to direct men as to
which vehicle they were to man up.
(b) In very difficult circumstances, forty men passed
pickets placed by another union and reported for work.
Management, who originally precipitated the dispute
(details supplied), failed to detail men for work and
actually repudiated an approach on behalf of the
thirteen men who remained in the depot at approximately
11.30 a.m. This in the Unions' view constituted a lock
out.
(c) The Council's failure to issue instructions to those
who had taken the advice of their Unions and reported
for work resulted in the frustration of the workforce
and completely undermined the positions of the Unions
concerned.
(d) The implications of this dispute are fundamental to the
future of industrial relations in Dublin County
Council. If workers, who on the advice of their
Unions, report for work, despite pickets, are to be
treated in the same manner as those picketing in
relation to pay for the day - there is absolutely no
point in Unions trying to maintain normality.
Council's arguments:
4. (i) At 8.30 a.m., the normal starting time, when it became
clear that the usual crewing up procedures were not
proceeding, the assistant foreman went to the canteen
where the staff had gathered and asked them to go to
work. He was told that they would go to work if the
picket was taken off the gates. A similar attempt was
again made at 9.00 a.m. which also failed. At 9.20
a.m. a third attempt was made by the foreman and his
assistant. This time instead of a general instruction
the staff were asked individually to go to work.
However, it became apparent that no work would be done
unless the pickets were first lifted.
(ii) At around 11.00 a.m. some 27 men left the depot without
notifying Management and without having attempted to do
any work. At 12.00 noon a Union shop steward made a
representation on behalf of a small number of men who
stated that they were willing to work. However, as the
bulk of the staff, including drivers, had gone home,
and as by that time alot of householders would have
taken their refuse back in, they were informed that it
was not possible to commence work at that stage.
(iii) The Council vehemently rejects any claim that the staff
be paid for the day as they failed to work having been
requested to do so on three separate occasions.
(iv) It should be noted that the Council's records show that
36 men and not forty attended at the depot on the day
in question.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the circumstances from
which this claim arises. If similar incidents were to occur in
the future it would not be disposed to accept that mere entry into
the depot would be sufficient to warrant payment. Having regard
to the manner in which work is organised, the Court is of the view
that the Council is correct in expecting vehicles to leave the
depot and proceed to do the duties appointed to them before making
payment.
However, since this appears to be the first occasion that such an
event occurred, and given the lack of experience of all concerned
as to how best to approach the problems arising, the Court in this
instance recommends that the Unions' claim be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
15th December, 1986.
D.H./J.C.