Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8777 Case Number: LCR11090 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of two supervising gardeners for payment of travel time.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties has come to the conclusion that the payments in respect of
travelling were made in error and that an entitlement to these
payments has not been established.
The Court does not therefore find it possible to recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8777 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11090
CC861466 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11090
Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two supervising gardeners for payment of
travel time.
Background:
2. The two workers concerned are employed by the Corporation as
resident supervising gardeners in the parks section. There are a
total of seven such workers employed in this capacity and they
reside in houses provided by the Corporation. They work a 40 hour
week, Monday to Friday, 8 am to 4.30 pm, and their weekly basic
rates of pay are as follows:
Minimum Maximum
#162.78 #173.22
3. Supervising gardeners are paid one hour minimum travel time
per day (Monday to Friday) as per the Construction Industry and
are allowed a standard two hours' overtime per week to cover the
extra duties they are required to carry out arising from the fact
that they reside in the park. For the past five years
(approximately) three of these workers, including the two workers
concerned, have also been in receipt of one hour's travel time
which is paid to general operative and supervisory grades
throughout the Corporation when involved in week-end working. The
Corporation says that this payment was made to these workers in
error and payment of same was terminated in August, 1986, when
noticed by the parks' superintendent. The Union contends that the
two workers concerned are entitled to the one hour's travel time
on the basis of the weekend working they are expected to perform.
Accordingly, the Union, on behalf of these two workers, served a
claim on the Corporation for the continued payment of the one
hour's travel time in question. The Corporation rejected the
claim and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred, on 25th November, 1986, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on
12th January, 1987, failed to resolve the dispute and the claim
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 6th March,
1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers concerned have been paid the one hour's
travel time over the past five years because they work
overtime at week-ends. This is in line with the
practice generally throughout the Corporation where
manual grades are paid travel time when required to
work overtime at weekends, which is outside their
normal working hours. An exception should not be made
in the case of the workers concerned who are called out
on duty on a regular basis at weekends and therefore,
the payment in question should not have been stopped by
the Corporation in respect of these workers.
(ii) In support of its case for stopping the payment of one
hour's travel time to the workers concerned the
Corporation refers to the fact that it provides a house
for these workers in the particular park in which they
carry out their duties. However, the Corporation was
never asked to provide these houses. These were built
by the Corporation because it was considered more
beneficial to have gardeners reside in the various
parks.
(iii) There are a number of sections in the Corporation where
staff are paid an on-call allowance if called out for
duty at weekends, in addition to travel time payments
and payment for overtime hours worked.
(iv) The Corporation claims that as the workers reside in
the parks, travel is not involved and therefore, they
are not entitled to travel time payments. However,
such payments are made to workers in various sections
of the Corporation who have little or no distance to
travel to work (details supplied to the Court).
(v) Given the small number of workers involved concession
of the claim would be of minimal cost to the
Corporation.
(vi) The payment in question was stopped by the Corporation
without any discussion on consultation with the Union
on the matter.
(vii) In all the circumstances the Union's claim should be
conceded, by the Corporation resuming payment of the
hour's travel time in question to the workers
concerned, as has been the case for the past number of
years.
Corporation's arguments:
5. (a) The claim is being made in relation to a small number
of the total resident supervising Gardeners, and the
payment of travel time to this small number was made in
error and was discontinued in August, 1986.
(b) No reference was made by the unions to the question of
travel time in addition to the standard 2 hours
overtime per week when the issue of curtailment of
overtime for gardeners generally was the subject of a
Labour Court hearing in 1983 (Recommendation No. 8414
refers).
(c) Resident supervising gardeners are allowed a standard
two hours overtime per week, paid for at double time
rate, in respect of extra duties they are required to
perform. This payment is made irrespective of whether
these workers are called out or not during the week or
at weekends, to carry out extra duties. Additional
overtime is paid to these employees when called out in
exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, these workers
are in receipt of travelling time for week days.
Therefore, they are adequately compensated for any
extra duties they might be required to perform.
(d) Payment of travel time to resident supervising
gardeners for weekdays is already a generous concession
because they live on the job in houses, generally of a
very high standard, completely rent free, provided by
the Corporation and there is no travelling involved in
taking up duty and finishing duty each day. On taking
up duty as resident supervising gardeners they are
informed of the obligations which they thereby assume
in relation to the security of the park, general
supervision of staff outside normal working hours, etc.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the Corporation
to pay additional travel time to these workers.
(e) Given its financial and employment situation the
Corporation must aim to eliminate overtime whenever
possible. This aim has been supported by the Trade
Union movement in general. It is all the more
invidious therefore, for a claim to be made to pay
travel time in addition to a flat two hour overtime
payment of which the workers are at present in receipt.
(f) Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects
for the Corporation by way of similar claims from other
gardeners and other grades of workers in the
Corporation not receiving this payment at present.
(g) In the grave financial situation facing the Corporation
(details supplied to the Court) it must devote the
limited resources at its disposal to the maintenance of
services and employment whenever possible.
(h) In all the circumstances, the Union's claim must be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties has come to the conclusion that the payments in respect of
travelling were made in error and that an entitlement to these
payments has not been established.
The Court does not therefore find it possible to recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
30th March, 1987
T.McC./J.C.