Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86525 Case Number: LCR10910 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRALEE UDC - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of swimming pool attendants/lifeguards employed at the Tralee sports complex for overtime and shift premia.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having regard to all the circumstances does not
recommend concession of the claims.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86525 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10910
CC86295 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10910
Parties: TRALEE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of swimming pool attendants/lifeguards
employed at the Tralee sports complex for overtime and shift
premia.
Background:
2. There are two pool attendants employed by Tralee Urban
District Council, one since 1974 and the other since 1984. The
wage rates applicable to the position is a scale rising from
#128.64 to #140.01. Lifeguards are required to work a 40 hour
week spread over 5 days which may include Sunday. On week one a
pool attendant will work 20 hours up to 6 p.m. and a further 20
between 7 and 11 p.m. On week two the attendant will work 28
hours up to 6 p.m., 2 hours after 7 p.m. on Saturday and 9 hours
on Sunday. On occasions the finishing time maybe later than 11
p.m. In November, 1985 the Union on behalf of the workers
concerned served a claim on the Council for (1) payment of shift
premia of 1/6 for working unsocial hours, (2) payment of overtime
premia as follows T.50 up to midday Saturday, and double time there
after. No progress was made at direct negotiations, and the
matter was referred to the conciliation service on 7th February,
1986. Following a conciliation conference held on 26th February,
1986 proposals were put for consideration. Discussions on the
proposal were not successful. Both sides then agreed to refer the
matter to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing was held at Tralee on 1st October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The workers concerned have a direct pay relationship
with workers employed by Tralee Vocational Education
Committee (V.E.C.) since 1980. At that time
rationalisation of local authorities had been concluded
and workers there received an extra #7.60. This
increase was also paid to allied grades in this case
V.E.C. caretakers. The workers concerned were put on
scale 4 of Tralee V.E.C. caretakers grade and also
received the #7.60 a week increase. In Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9823, the Court accepted that a
direct relationship exists between V.E.C. caretaker and
local authority wage rates.
(ii) Paragraph 4A & 4B of the rationalisation agreement of
V.E.C. caretakers, (which set out overtime and shift
premia respectively) applies to the workers concerned.
(iii) The Labour Court has issued a number of recommendations
on claims for the introduction of shift premia. In
Labour Court Recommendation No. 3600 the Court stated
that "To qualify for the payment of a shift premia,
persons must work alternating or rotating shifts which
have a starting time variation of at least four hours."
(iv) The claim before the Court is not a special claim, it
is the continuation of pay alignment which has been
established over the past six years.
Council's arguments:
4. (a) Pool attendants already receive a differential over
general operatives employed by the Council. In
determining the wage rates initially, account was taken
of the fact that the pool would be open at night and on
Sundays.
(b) The Council cannot afford any increases in cost as it
has a large operational deficit, and it's grant from
the Department of the Environment has been reduced. If
the deficit cannot be reduced significantly the Council
will have to consider closing the pool either on a
permanent basis or during winter months when operating
costs are higher.
(c) Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects
on other workers employed at the Sports Complex, the
Council and eventually in all Local Authorities.
(d) Concession of the claim would be in conflict with
Labour Court Recommendation No. 10163, where a similar
claim against another Local Authority was rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having regard to all the circumstances does not
recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
____________________________
Chairman.
16th January, 1987.
M.D./J.C.