Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87706 Case Number: LCR11558 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of six postmen for the provision of uniforms.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that as these staff are not in direct
contact with customers there is no need in accordance with Company
policy for them to wear uniforms.
The Court considers, however, that there is some merit in the
point that the postmen's clothing is subjected to an inordinate
amount of wear and tear. Accordingly, the Court recommends that
an allowance of #37 per annum be paid to the claimants as a
contribution to defraying the expense.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87706 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11558
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS P.L.C.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of six postmen for the provision of uniforms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The duties of the postmen are the collection and delivery of
internal mail within the Dublin Airport Estate and the loading of
post vans. They are currently supplied with protective clothing
which consists of a ramp jacket, raincoat, industrial gloves,
rubber boots, industrial boots/shoes and pullups. A claim was
served by the Union for the provision of a uniform and this was
rejected by the Company. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 20th August, 1987 and
a conciliation conference took place on 15th September, 1987. No
agreement was possible, however, and the matter was referred to a
full hearing of the Court. The hearing took place on 12th
November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has argued that uniforms are issued only to
frontline staff, in contact with the public, for the purpose
of projecting a corporate image. The Union considers that the
postmen meet these criteria. Concern has been observed
amongst the travelling public on observing un-uniformed men
carrying mail. Postmen certainly have more contact with the
public than loaders and cleaners. Those workers are supplied
with uniforms.
2. Since the postmen are required to carry canvas sacks
there is considerable wear and tear on their own clothes in
the course of carrying out their duties. (Items of clothing
were exhibited to the Court).
3. Uniforms for postmen are very desirable for security
purposes in that they would be easily identifiable. At
present there is difficulty in distinguishing between postmen
and the travelling public. Although indentification badges
are worn, these are only visible at close range and are not
visible at all from the rear. Postmen have access to all
areas of the airport including high security zones.
3. 4. The items of clothing currently supplied constitute
protective clothing suitable only in certain weather
conditions. The boots supplied are unsuitable for the amount
of walking which postmen do (twelve to fifteen miles each
day). A shoe allowance of #37 per annum is currently paid to
clerical staff.
5. The cost of conceding the claim would be approximately
#1,980 (#330 per suit) an insignificant amount in the context
of the overall cost of providing uniforms.
6. Postmen should not be treated less favourably than other
members of staff with regard to this matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has, of necessity, embarked on a cost
cutting programme over the past number of years. The target
saving for 1987/88 is #15 million and for the next five years
an ongoing saving of #5 million per year. One clearly
identified cost area is the provision of staff uniforms. The
annual cost is #800,000 plus cleaning costs of #140,000. It
is the Company's intention to reduce this cost by withdrawing
uniforms from non customer contact staff, extending the life
of issues, payment or part payment by staff for uniforms and
placing a ban on any new issue of uniforms to staff not
required to have direct customer contact.
2. The provision of uniforms to customer contact staff is
part of the Company's policy of projecting an individual
corporate identity. Postmen are not required to have contact
with the public in the course of their duties. In other
instances uniforms are necessary for security reasons e.g.
loaders and cleaners who must board aircraft. It is not
necessary to provide postmen with uniforms for security
reasons. They are easily identifiable by means of
identification badges.
3. Postmen are supplied with adequate clothing to carry out
their work. The cost of protective clothing is #78.91 per
individual. The Company has received no complaints with
regard to the industrial boots supplied and does not agree
that postmen walk 12 to 15 miles daily.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that as these staff are not in direct
contact with customers there is no need in accordance with Company
policy for them to wear uniforms.
The Court considers, however, that there is some merit in the
point that the postmen's clothing is subjected to an inordinate
amount of wear and tear. Accordingly, the Court recommends that
an allowance of #37 per annum be paid to the claimants as a
contribution to defraying the expense.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
4th December, 1987 --------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman