Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87649 Case Number: LCR11396 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION - and - FWUI |
Claim, on behalf of toilet attendants, for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that some compensation for loss of shift
premium and public holiday working is warranted in the particular
circumstances of this case and therefore recommends that the first
four claimants be paid #500 each and the second three #300 each in
settlement of the claim. The Court does not recommend any
concession for the four claimants who will continue in the public
toilets.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87649 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11396
CC871252 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11396
Parties: DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of toilet attendants, for compensation for
loss of earnings.
Background:
2. This claim arises from the Corporation's decision to
rationalise the public toilet service in the borough. Originally
18 toilets were maintained with regular staffing levels as
follows:
1 senior attendant
7 male attendants
6 female attendants
substitutes provided as required for annual/sick leave.
Following discussions at local level, agreement was reached in
December, 1985, on a package which provided for revised staffing
levels as follows:-
1 senior attendant,
5 male attendants plus a relief attendant who would remain
full time in the toilets/baths department,
5 female attendants plus a casual relief.
The revised staffing arrangements will mean that four will now
work all year round as toilet attendants, three others will work
for 17 weeks as toilet attendants while being re-deployed for the
remainder of the year and the other four staff will be permanently
switched to other duties. The Union argues that its members will
lose a shift premium allowance, an eating on site allowance and a
travelling allowance, two of them permanently and three of them
for a period of 35 weeks annually and is claiming payment of twice
the annual loss to the re-deployed staff. This has been rejected
by the Corporation and as no local level settlement was possible,
the issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 6th August, 1987. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on the 25th August and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 3rd September, 1987 and a letter
recommendation was issued to the parties the following day.
Union's argument:
3. (a) The Corporation's proposals amount to a productivity
measure with consequent ongoing savings. The workers
concerned have agreed to the new system and recognise
that they are facing variable losses for the future. On
this basis alone, the claim for a lump sum payment of
twice the agreed annual loss of earnings is wholly
justified (details of projected losses supplied to the
Court).
Corporation's arguments:
4. (a) The re-organisation of the public toilets was implemented
to correct an overmanning situation and to operate the
service within the reduced funding level provided.
(b) The Corporation is experiencing severe funding
difficulties and is operating on continuous overdraft
facilities. The deficit on current account which
amounted to #2.6 million at the end of 1985 had increased
to #3.2 million at the end of 1986.
(c) While the re-deployed staff have suffered a loss of
earnings involving the shift differential, it must be
acknowledged that the staff involved will not be required
to work shift or any form of unsocial hours in their new
positions.
(d) The benefits of reduced costs of operating the public
toilets service are necessary to help to maintain other
essential and statutory services and also to maintain
existing employment levels as far as possible so as to
avoid redundancies which were a strong possibility in the
initial discussions with the Unions.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that some compensation for loss of shift
premium and public holiday working is warranted in the particular
circumstances of this case and therefore recommends that the first
four claimants be paid #500 each and the second three #300 each in
settlement of the claim. The Court does not recommend any
concession for the four claimants who will continue in the public
toilets.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd October, 1987 John M Horgan
DH/PG Chairman