Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87413 Case Number: LCR11430 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GALWAY CO. CO. - and - AEU |
Claim on behalf of a fitter mechanic for the refund of cost of tool kit.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the opinion that the Union's proposal to pay
25% of the cost of the replacement of the stolen tools is
reasonable and recommends accordingly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87413 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11430
CC87471 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11430
Parties: GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a fitter mechanic for the refund of cost of
tool kit.
Background:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Council since
1977. On 10th July, 1986 a tool box (locked) containing the
tools belonging to the worker, was found to be missing from the
Council's workshop. Tools belonging to the other tradesmen were
also in the workshop but were not stolen. Subsequently, it was
discovered that an angle grinder owned by the Council was also
missing and presumed stolen at the same time.
3. At local level the Council stated that tools were the
responsibility of each individual craftsman and so the cost should
be borne by the worker. The Council said it was prepared to order
new tools for the worker (a quotation for replacement at a cost of
#402 had been received) and deduct #5 per week from the fitter's,
wages. Further discussions took place and it was agreed that a
set of higher quality tools valued at #498 would be purchased.
The Council offered to contribute #100 towards the cost of the
tools and to deduct #5 per week to cover the balance. This was
unacceptable to the Union which was of the opinion that the worker
should only make a contribution towards the cost of the tools. #5
per week was deducted from the fitters wages from July, 1986 to
March, 1987 totalling #150, at which time the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 6th May, 1987. At this conference the
Council said that as a concession it was prepared to pay a sum
towards the cost of the tools in line with a Construction Industry
Federation Agreement relating to compensation for the loss of
tools (details supplied to the Court), whereby under certain
conditions the employer is liable for 60% of cost up to a maximum
total cost of #429. Based on the original cost of replacing the
tools of #402 the Council was therefore prepared to pay #241 and
the balance of #257 to be paid by the worker (on a weekly basis).
This was unacceptable to the Union who stated that the worker
would be prepared to pay 25% of the cost of the tools actually
purchased (approximately #125). No agreement could be reached and
on 20th May, 1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 8th September, 1987
Union's arguments:
4. (i) It was not the worker's fault that adequate provisions
for security were not taken by the Council. The
lockers provided have never been used for storing tool
kits as they are generally full of Council materials
(spare parts, etc) nor was it known that they were
intended for this purpose. In addition, there is easy
access to the workshop.
(ii) The Council has insurance for its own tools but it is
now known no insurance for its workers tools. The
offer that the worker pay 25% of the cost of the tools
is more than reasonable considering that the worker's
tools which were stolen were originally purchased by
him and are used for work in the Council.
Council's arguments:
5. (a) It is well established practise that tradesmen employed
by the Council supply their own tools. Tools are the
responsibility of the craftsmen themselves and not the
Council. Lockers are provided for storing belongings
and at the time the workers tool kit was stolen he had
not availed of this lock-up facility. The offer made
by the Council that it would pay #241 of the cost is
extremely fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
(b) The Council does not have an insurance policy covering
the theft of trademens tools. Such insurance is rarely
provided by insurance companies due to cost, etc. The
Council's angle grinder which was also stolen was not
insured and the Council therefore did not make an
insurance claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is of the opinion that the Union's proposal to pay
25% of the cost of the replacement of the stolen tools is
reasonable and recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
24th September, 1987.
U.M./J.C.