Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86662 Case Number: LCR10783 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - ITGWU |
Claim that shift attendants in the Sewers and Main Drainage section of Dublin Corporation be granted time off to cash their wage cheques.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that the facility for the time off
is necessary in the case of the workers concerned and does not
therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86662 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10783
CC86747 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10783
Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim that shift attendants in the Sewers and Main Drainage
section of Dublin Corporation be granted time off to cash their
wage cheques.
Background:
2. The claimants work a 24 hour shift cycle over a period of four
weeks in the treatment works in the various pumping stations in the
city. Like the other general operatives in the Corporation they
are paid by cheque on a weekly basis but unlike the majority of the
others they do not get time off to cash the cheques. The Union
claimed that this facility should be extended to the claimants but
local level negotiations failed to resolve the issue and on the
25th April, 1986, the Union referred the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference, held on
the 12th August, 1986 (the earliest date suitable to the
Corporation), no agreement could be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on the 18th September, 1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) Payment by cheque was introduced in Dublin Corporation
in 1977, following negotiation between Management and
the Unions. Prior to this the workers were paid by
cash on a fortnightly basis. When the new payment
system was introduced it was agreed that the workers
would be allowed to finish work half an hour before
normal finishing time or be given half an hour off
during the day to go to the bank to cash their wage
cheques. However, this facility is not available to
the claimants who have to cash their cheques in their
own time.
(ii) There is no reason why this group of workers should be
treated less favourably than the other general
operatives and if the Corporation is not prepared to
grant them time off to cash their wage cheques, then it
should pay them by cash.
Corporation's arguments:
4. (a) It is not feasible to allow the claimants time off
during their shifts to cash their wage cheques. By the
nature of the duties for which they are responsible
their attendance is required full time.
(b) Unlike other Corporation day workers, the Corporation
facilitates the claimants by the earlier distribution
of their cheques. Furthermore, again unlike their day
counterparts, they have every opportunity to cash their
cheques during normal banking hours and there is no
justification whatsoever for time off or payment in
lieu.
(c) These employees are continuous shift workers and are
paid a 25% shift premium. Their services are required
for the entire eight hour shift and accordingly they
are not permitted to leave the premises, even during
their fifteen minute paid rest period as provided under
the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. Nevertheless
they are paid the full eating-on-site allowance each
day although day workers in the Corporation in receipt
of the same allowance are not paid their half hour
lunch interval.
(d) The Corporation made very reasonable and generous
arrangements when weekly cheques were introduced for
general operatives. These arrangements have now been
in existence for many years and there is no
justification for a departure from them. The Union
agreed over ten years ago that their members would
co-operate in every way to facilitate the distribution
of weekly cheques instead of the fortnightly pay to
which they had previously committed themselves, and the
Corporation regards the present claim as an attempt to
partially withdraw from this co-operation and practice.
(e) The Corporation indicated during the conciliation
conference that it was willing to post the pay cheques
direct to the home of each of the claimants each
Wednesday, if they so wished. This offer is still
available to the workers concerned.
(f) Any departure from the existing arrangements for the
claimants would have substantial repercussive effects
for other workers throughout the Corporation, including
shift fitters in the Sewers and Main Drainage section
(who have made no such claim) and Fire Brigade
employees (whose claim for payment for cashing their
cheques in their own time was rejected). The
Corporation is gravely concerned about the possible
cost effects of any departure from existing
arrangements for such employees, totalling about 750 in
all, and the annual cost of concession would be in the
region of #250,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that the facility for the time off
is necessary in the case of the workers concerned and does not
therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
31st October, 1986 --------------
D.H./U Deputy Chairman