Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87466 Case Number: LCR11413 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOUTH CO. COUNCIL - and - FWUI |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of a worker for an improvement in grading and the payment of a week-end allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimant's wages should be advanced
three increments with effect from 1st September, 1987. The Court
also recommends that his remuneration should be reviewed when the
harbour is developed as outlined at the Court hearing.
The Court finds no justification for the payment of a week-end
allowance in this case.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87466 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11413
CC87517 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11413
PARTIES: LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of a worker for an improvement
in grading and the payment of a week-end allowance.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was employed in 1950, as part-time
Harbour Constable in Clogherhead. He was appointed full-time to
the position in 1982, after he had been given additional duties.
His main responsibilities include securing the harbour in times of
bad weather, general maintenance and collection of harbour dues.
The Union sought the re-grading of the Constable to the Waterworks
Caretaker's scale, on the basis that the Constable, in common with
the Waterworks Caretakers, has a 24 hour, 7 day attendance
liability, with no fixed working hours. The Union also sought
that the Constable be paid the normal week-end allowance payable
to Waterworks Caretakers. The Council rejected the Union's claim
on the grounds that the Constable's working conditions have
changed very little since his appointment in 1950. The Council
said that in 1974, with the assistance of the conciliation service
of the Labour Court, the Constable accepted 85% of the Road
Labourer's Rate, which has since been increased to the full rate
and included in the pension scheme. On 30th March, 1987, the
issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. As no agreement was reached at a conciliation conference
on 26th May, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, on
4th June, 1987, for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dundalk on 1st September, 1987 the earliest
date suitable to all parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Since the Constable was appointed full-time, the level
of harbour traffic has increased from a minimal level
to about 30 trawlers and various other craft. This
has led to an increased demand on the Constable's
time, particularly in relation to the collection of
harbour dues and the placing of the tidal boom across
the harbour mouth.
(b) The range of duties and responsibilities involved in
the Constable's job is not fairly reflected in his
current level of remuneration. It would be unjust to
expect him to continue the level of commitment whilst
continuing to be paid the same rate as a road
labourer. Further, the concession of this claim would
not have any repercussions locally or nationally.
Council's arguments:
4. (i) The Council does not accept that the Constable's job
is similar to that of a Waterworks Caretaker, who has
a regular set of duties which must be performed
daily, weekly or monthly, has a daily attendance
liability and has a much more easily evaluated
workload.
(ii) The Council does not accept that payment of a week-end
allowance can arise, as the Constable has never been
paid overtime and is not a Waterworks Caretaker.
(iii) As the harbour is currently in a poor state of repair
the Council does not accept that traffic levels have
increased substantially. The Council is prepared to
consider the question of an increase when harbour
development work is carried out over the next few
years. In the meantime the Council cannot be seen to
give an increase to one worker, while putting others
on short-time.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimant's wages should be advanced
three increments with effect from 1st September, 1987. The Court
also recommends that his remuneration should be reviewed when the
harbour is developed as outlined at the Court hearing.
The Court finds no justification for the payment of a week-end
allowance in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman