Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87600 Case Number: LCR11465 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - UCATT;INPDTU |
Claim for the restoration of overtime for the erection and dismantling of scaffolding.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the fact that the change to an inherently
less efficient system has been brought about by the current
financial difficulties of the Corporation the Court does not
recommend either the restoration of the former system of working
or compensation for the loss of overtime involved.
The Court is of the opinion that more direct consultation with
those immediately affected by the proposed changes would be in the
interest of better industrial relations.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87600 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11465
CC87865 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11465
Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH NATIONAL PAINTERS AND DECORATORS TRADE UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
Subject:
1. Claim for the restoration of overtime for the erection and
dismantling of scaffolding.
Background:
2. This claim concerns approximately 200 painters and carpenters
employed by the Corporation in its Housing Maintenance Section.
In 1974 an agreement was concluded under which the erection and
dismantling of scaffolding, which had up to then been done by
general workers, would be done by craftsmen. In 1978 it was
agreed that the craftsmen using the scaffolding would be paid an
allowance. Since 1979 in addition to the allowance, which has
remained at #2.53 per week, the craftsmen involved on scaffolding
have been paid a half hour overtime each morning and evening to
permit the erection and dismantling of scaffolding outside of
normal working hours. In May, 1987 the Corporation
discontinued the overtime arrangement in view of its financial
situation and decided that the erection and dismantling of
scaffolding would be done as part of the normal working day. The
Unions claimed the restoration of the overtime in accordance with
the agreement reached in 1979. The Corporation rejected the claim
due to its financial position.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
29th May, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 5th
June, 1987 but no agreement was reached. On 31st July, 1987 the
case was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 14th
September, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) When it was agreed almost 10 years ago that the workers
would erect and dismantle scaffolding there was a
considerable cost saving involved for the Corporation.
(ii) The agreement to the use of scaffolding included
conditions as follows:
(A) All persons using the towers would be supplied
with safety boots, helmets and overalls.
(B) Normal working hours would be 8 am to 5.30 pm, and
time worked between 8 am and 8.30 am and 5 pm and
5.30 pm would be paid at premium rates.
The Unions are claiming that the use of scaffolding
should be in accordance with that agreement.
(iii) The Unions are conscious of the difficult financial
situation facing the Corporation but the unilateral
breaking of agreements can only eventually lead to the
complete breakdown in industrial relations and its
attendant consequences.
(iv) The allowance was paid to the workers on the basis of
productivity. There was no question of it being a
payment for any skill involved in the use of
scaffolding.
Corporation's arguments:
5. (a) Since 1982 there has been a continuing reduction in the
domestic rate grant paid to the Corporation from
central Government funds. In addition the estimates
adopted for the Corporation for 1987 were reduced to
such an extent that it has been necessary to cease all
overtime working throughout the various sections of the
Corporation, including the overtime which is the
subject of this claim.
(b) The Corporation's present financial position has lead
to a reduction in the level of service provided and is
placing in jeopardy the maintenance of the existing
workforce. The Corporation must reduce or eliminate
unnecessary expenditure in every possible area in order
to avoid any further run down of services and lay-off
of staff. In the present financial circumstances it is
not possible for the Corporation to reinstate the
overtime working or to pay compensation for loss of
overtime.
(c) The Corporation is aware that the effect of the
abolition of the overtime has been that the level of
productive working time as a percentage of the total
working time is less than when the overtime was worked.
However, it cannot afford to alter that situation
within its present financial resources.
(d) It is not acceptable to the Corporation that the Unions
should seek to depart from the arrangement whereby
their members are required to erect and dismantle
scaffolding and are paid an allowance for the skill
involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the fact that the change to an inherently
less efficient system has been brought about by the current
financial difficulties of the Corporation the Court does not
recommend either the restoration of the former system of working
or compensation for the loss of overtime involved.
The Court is of the opinion that more direct consultation with
those immediately affected by the proposed changes would be in the
interest of better industrial relations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
14th October, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.