Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8752 Case Number: LCR11105 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of 230 workers for payment for one day's unofficial stoppage and on behalf of 40 workers for payment for one and a half days' unofficial stoppage.
Recommendation:
6. The Court noted that, despite earlier consultations,
discussions and undertakings between the parties, a sense of
unease and mistrust was expressed by the workers concerned. The
workers overriding concern was the preservation of jobs and while
the Council was similarly concerned it did not succeed in
convincing the workers of its whole-hearted commitment. The Court
nevertheless feels that on the days in question, the action taken
by the claimants was in breach of disputes procedures and
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
6th April, 1987 --------------------
A K./U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8752 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11105
CC861959 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11105
Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of 230 workers for payment for one day's
unofficial stoppage and on behalf of 40 workers for payment for
one and a half days' unofficial stoppage.
Background:
2. An agreement exists in the Limerick area, since 1985, whereby
bodies such as Telecom Eireann or Bord Gais Eireann carry out
temporary road surface restoration only, when their work
necessitates road cutting. Such bodies are responsible for any
public liability claims arising within six months of completion of
temporary restoration. Limerick Corporation, as Roads Authority
for the City, carries out the permanent restoration. The material
normally used for temporary surface restoration is cold macadam
while Limerick Corporation uses hot asphalt for permanent
restoration. Since the agreement was drawn up there have been
various consultations, discussions and undertakings between the
Union and Corporation Management in relation to it.
3. On Saturday 15th November, 1986, a contractor for Bord Gais
Eireann carried out surface restoration work using hot macadam.
The workers in the Roads Department of Limerick Corporation felt
that this was in breach of the agreement as they considered it to
be permanent restoration work. On the morning of Monday 17th
November, 1986, union officials telephoned Limerick Corporation
management. The Assistant Town Clerk was unavailable and the
Union officials were unable to speak with any member of management
at that time. The Roads Department employees then withdrew their
labour and placed an unofficial picket on the Corporation at City
Hall and Sarsfield House. A meeting was held that evening between
the Union and an Adminstrative Officer of the Corporation. The
Union sought that a Corporation road "gang" should work behind
Bord Gais Eireann's contractor to carry out permanent road
restoration as pipelaying was completed. It was also suggested
that Corporation road gangs be rostered for overtime on Saturdays
for this purpose. The Corporation was unwilling to agree to this
on the basis that it had to adhere to its schedule of road works
for 1986 and to complete works which qualified for government road
grants. Furthermore, if the Corporation were to carry out such
work it would be responsible for public liability claims arising
within six months which would otherwise be the responsibility of
Bord Gais Eireann. On the following day, 18th November, 1986,
Union members placed unofficial pickets on most Corporation
depots. Other Union members continued to work normally. The
Branch Secretary sought a further meeting with management.
Management was unwilling to hold any meeting until there was a
return to normal working. On Wednesday 19th November normal
working resumed. At a meeting on Friday 21st November the
Corporation stated that it would be carrying out permanent
restoration of the road cuttings made by Bord Gais Eireann after
six months. The Corporation was unwilling to make any payment to
the workers for the period of the unofficial work stoppage. The
Union referred this matter to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 24th November, 1986 and a conciliation conference
was held on 13th January 1987. No agreement was reached, however,
and the matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 3rd March, 1987, in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) A hot macadam finish is universally recognised as a
permanent one. Therefore, the workers believe that the
work done by the Bord Gais contractor was their work.
The work was done on a Saturday when Limerick
Corporation workers would be less likely to see it
being carried out.
(ii) Corporation management adopted a very poor attitude on
the morning of 17th November, 1986 in not reacting to
the telephone call from the Union, in the course of
which the seriousness of the situation was pointed out.
This was a major contributing factor to the work
stoppage. It is not true to say that the Union took
industrial action before requesting a meeting.
(iii) These low paid workers consider that a greater degree
of understanding and sympathy might have been shown by
Corporation management in the circumstances of this
case.
Management's arguments:
5. (a) Management is not prepared to make payment for the
period of the work stoppage since it does not believe
that there were any grounds for a dispute.
(b) While B.G.E. or its agents may have used hot macadam
they were only carrying out a temporary restoration.
The workers were informed that the Corporation would be
carrying out permanent restoration in due course in
accordance with previous assurances. The Corporation
uses hot asphalt for permanent restoration because it
is more durable than hot macadam.
(c) The Corporation could not agree to carry out immediate
permanent restoration as responsibility for public
liability claims in the event of subsidence etc., would
fall on the Corporation.
(d) Even if the Union had a valid grievance, it lay with
Bord Gais Eireann and/or their agents, not with the
Corporation.
(e) The workers withdrew their labour without notice and
were in complete breach of normal dispute procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court noted that, despite earlier consultations,
discussions and undertakings between the parties, a sense of
unease and mistrust was expressed by the workers concerned. The
workers overriding concern was the preservation of jobs and while
the Council was similarly concerned it did not succeed in
convincing the workers of its whole-hearted commitment. The Court
nevertheless feels that on the days in question, the action taken
by the claimants was in breach of disputes procedures and
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
6th April, 1987 --------------------
A K./U.S. Deputy Chairman