Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87958 Case Number: LCR11682 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of three attendants for compensation for increased duties arising from a reduction in the staffing levels in the sports hall.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87958 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11682
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of three attendants for compensation for
increased duties arising from a reduction in the staffing levels
in the sports hall.
BACKGROUND:
2. A new sports hall was opened by the College in September,
1981, and was staffed by four attendants. In May, 1987, two of
the attendants resigned and because of financial constraints and
the government recruitment embargo, the College was unable to
recruit replacements. However, an attendant in another area
within the College was re-deployed to the sports hall to bring the
staffing level to three. A roster was agreed between Management
and the attendants for the summer period when activity in the
sports hall was lower than term-time. Prior to the start of the
Autumn term Management approached the attendants and suggested
that the three-man roster should continue during the academic year
and produced a roster reflecting the longer opening hours of
term-time. This was rejected by the workers concerned. Local
level meetings were held in an effort to resolve the dispute and
on the 21st October the Union claimed #2,000 per man as
compensation for extra duties resulting from the reduction in
manning levels. Management rejected this. At a meeting on the
3rd November the parties agreed a roster and it was also agreed
that the compensation claim would be referred to a third party.
Management were unwilling to attend a Rights Commissioner's
hearing and on the 4th November, 1987, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference on the 26th November failed to resolve the issue and it
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 26th January,
1988 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has stated that its intention would be to
prevent an increase in workload by reducing services. This
had not happened and will not happen because of the nature of
the job. There are now periods when only one attendant is on
duty and, as one of the duties is handling cash, this places a
risk on that person which was not previously there.
Management has also failed to make provision for breaks on
Saturday, as was agreed.
3. 2. Extra work in the form of erecting platforms for
keep-fit classes and escorting another staff member to the
bank to make lodgements has recently been added to the
claimants' existing duties.
3. In terms of basic pay alone, the College is saving
#19,240 per annum (two salaries, not including pension and
PRSI). The claimants have shown a remarkable willingness to
accommodate Management's changes thereby acknowledging the
difficulties currently affecting the College.
4. The claimants' workload has increased and the Union
considers that a compensatory payment is only fair and just.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Decisions as to the level of services and appropriate
staffing levels in an area are a function of the College
Management. It is the considered view of Management that the
staffing levels in the sports hall, which were generous at the
outset, are still quite adequate in relation to the services
currently provided in the area.
2. If there had been an unreasonable increase in the
workload of the claimants there might be some merit in their
claim. However, there has been no increase in their workload.
The College has fully accepted that a reduction of staff in
the area means that there must be a reduction in the services
provided. The working arrangements in the sports hall have
accordingly been re-arranged, to ensure that there is no
increase in the attendants' workload. The facilities
available to users, and the times during which the sports hall
is open, have been reduced in consequence.
3. The College has implemented a number of changes in the
sports hall, with a view to facilitating the attendants in
their work. For example, a P.A. system has been installed,
which can be used as an aid in clearing the hall at closing
time, or in the event of an emergency. Notices have been
posted, informing users that activities must cease at a
specified time half an hour before the scheduled closure of
the building. A notice concerning the use of lockers has also
been displayed.
4. 4. Even if the College accepted that there is merit in the
Union's claim, which it does not, it would not be in a
position to pay compensation. In common with other public
sector employments, the College has been directed to reduce
expenditure and staff numbers. The College has suffered a
reduction in money allocation totalling some #1.5 million
for the calendar years 1987 and 1988, and has been directed to
reduce staff by 120 in the same period. This follows a period
of stringency in the public sector since 1981, resulting in 82
vacancies on the 1986 staff establishment. The present claim
in relation to the non-replacement of one attendant in a
recreational facility must, therefore, be viewed in the
context of a situation where important academic and academic
support posts remain unfilled.
5. The present level of security in the sports hall is
similar to that in other areas of College. The College campus
is patrolled by security officers and a library guard is
present on the floor below the sports hall. In addition, cash
handling procedures have been revised to give added protection
to attendants when working on their own.
6. If there had been an unreasonable change in the shift
system, the Attendants might have good reason to feel
aggrieved. However, the new shift system now in operation was
implemented with the agreement of the attendants, after much
discussion. The new system is designed so that two Attendants
are always present at times of peak demand. The revised
roster has also significant advantages for the Attendants, in
that working time on Saturdays is reduced by two hours, and
the Sports hall closes half an hour earlier on weekdays. The
total amount of Saturdays and Sundays on which attendants are
required to work is also less under the new shift roster.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
11th February, 1988 ----------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman