Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86987 Case Number: LCR11036 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JIC FOR STATE INDUSTRIAL EMP. - and - ICTU |
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE DELAY IN ISSUING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the acknowledged recent improvements in the
distribution and issue of uniforms and protective clothing the
Court does not intend to issue a recommendation at this stage but
would be willing to review the situation in six months time at the
request of either party.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86987 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11036
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11036
Parties: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
and
IRISH CONGRESS GROUP OF UNIONS
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 5,500 industrial employees in Government
departments for the payment of compensation for the delay in
issuing protective clothing.
Background:
2. State industrial employees of Government departments in the
performance of their duties are supplied with protective and/or
uniform clothing, footwear etc. The Union side of the Joint
Industrial Council (J.I.C.) for those workers have claimed that
where there are delays in the issue of such clothing compensation
should be paid. At a meeting of the J.I.C. on the 6th May, 1986
they lodged the following claim:
#200 per annum for each twelve-month delay in uniforms
issue:
#150 per annum for each twelve-month delay in
protective clothing issue:
Payments to be retrospective; with pro-rata payments to
be made for delays of less than twelve months.
The payment was to compensate for the wear and tear of the workers
clothing in the performance of their duties, and to build into the
system an incentive for the timely delivery of the clothing. At
the J.I.C. meeting of 3rd June, 1986, the Employers side replied
to the Union claim stating that it wished to solve any problems
which existed and were already making progress. They did not
consider at that time, that it was necessary to refer the claim to
the Court. The claim was raised again at the J.I.C. meeting of
2nd December, 1986, and it was agreed to refer the claim to the
Court. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation on 9th December, 1986. A
Court hearing took place in Dublin on 12th February, 1987.
Union side's arguments:
3. (i) Protective clothing and uniforms are provided so that
workers may more efficiently carry out their employers'
business. Clothing issues are the subject of
negotiations. Yet, the Union side find themselves in
an impossible position when items agreed through
industrial relations machinery cannot be implemented
due to break-downs in internal systems. It is to this
end that at the May, 1986 meeting of the J.I.C. the
Unions lodged a claim.
(ii) The Union side would be quite happy if this claim was
conceded, but never paid. The object of the exercise
is not to put extra money into people's pockets; it is
to secure our members due entitlement by building into
the system a financial disincentive to delays.
(iii) The Union side have demonstrated considerable patience
in dealing with this matter. Since 1984, promises have
been made at successive monthly meetings that supply
problems would shortly be rectified. While the Unions'
accept that there has been an effort to improve matters
the situation remains completely unacceptable (details
supplied to the Court).
Official side's arguments:
4. (a) The Official Side rejects the Unions contention that
payments should be made where there are delays in the
issue of clothing. In any system involving the order,
receipt, and supply, of clothing it is inevitable that
some delays will occur. Many of the delays which have
arisen have been due to failure by suppliers to meet
delivery schedules or, in some cases, closure of
suppliers. These factors are outside the control of
departments and they should not be held responsible for
them. Many delays which occurred with suppliers could
have been avoided if departments had used foreign
contractors but it has always been the policy to use
home suppliers and it is presumed that the Unions would
support this policy also.
(b) The Official Side submits that industrial employees of
Government departments are extremely well catered for
in regard to protective clothing and uniform clothing.
The range and quality of clothing supplied compare more
than favourably with that supplied by other employers
in the public and private sectors (details supplied to
Court). In 1986 about #400,000 was spent on the supply
of clothing to the workers covered by the claim and a
similar amount has been allocated for 1987.
Departments have no further funds available to them to
meet the cost of any concession of this claim. This
cost could only be met by savings and this could affect
the amount and/or quality of clothing provided or
employment levels.
(c) It is important to appreciate that even where delays
occur in the re-issue of clothing it does not normally
mean that employees do not have a supply of the
appropriate clothing as the original issue of clothing
would be still available to them and capable of being
used. The fact that a particular item of clothing is
normally replaced after a certain interval does not
necessarily mean that the life of the item is exhausted
after that period. Items of clothing are supplied as
soon as they become available. Where a delay has
occurred in providing an item the replacement item is
still issued when it would originally have been due.
This occurs even when the interval between the issuing
of the original item and its replacement is less than
the normal one. In cases where significant delays have
occurred, double issues of clothing have been made.
(d) There is an onus on the workers also to ensure that
requirements in relation to clothing are brought to the
attention of management of the department concerned in
good time. Departments have always been willing to
investigate any problems identified by the Unions in
this regard and to take whatever steps are possible to
resolve them. If the Unions wish to bring any further
problems of this kind to the attention of departments
they will be similarly followed up.
(e) The Unions' claim suggests that there is a
misunderstanding about the purpose of uniform clothing.
This is supplied to meet the requirements of