Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88352 Case Number: AD8842 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal, by the Union, against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, No. ST 43/88.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
does not find sufficient grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88352 APPEAL DECISION NO AD4288
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the Union, against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, No. ST 43/88.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Central Bank of Ireland has premises at two locations; its
head office in Dame Street and its currency centre in Sandyford,
Dublin 14. The maintenance function of the Bank encompasses the
general upkeep and maintenance of the Bank's premises and
equipment in both these locations. There are three machine and
general assistants (M&GAs) attached to the Dame Street maintenance
team and six attached to the Sandyford team. Besides the M&GAs,
there are also craftsmen employed by the Bank such as
electricians, fitters and turners. The "summary of duties" in the
job description of M&GAs states:-
" Machine and general assistants in the three areas
mentioned may be assigned to:-
(a) assist craftsmen or tradesmen in carrying out
their duties,
(b) carry out any other duties for which they are
considered competent by their supervisor or his
nominee including cleaning duties,
(c) assist in the operation of certain machines and
operating other machines. "
2. Within the past year a dispute has arisen as to whether the
M&GAs, under their job description, are required to carry out
certain painting duties e.g. full rooms. The Union contends that
such work is not proper to the M&GAs while management contends
that it is. In support of this, management states that staff who
transferred from the mint department to maintenance, a few years
ago, performed painting duties. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and on 5th April, 1988 the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
" It has been clearly established to my satisfaction
that the assistants have performed such project
painting in the past. This work may have been the
only work available to the mint men at that time, but
what is important is that it was performed under the
terms of Clause (B) of the summary of duties. I do
not accept the Shop Stewards argument that this was
done under duress. The alternative was a long lay-off
or redundancy. These workers were fortunate that they
had such an alternative and could remain in relatively
secure and well paid employment. Accordingly on two
grounds I recommend that the Union's interpretation is
incorrect, firstly, on custom and practice and
secondly, on the basis of the very broad scope for
allocation which the actual wording of Clause (B)
confers to the Bank. "
On 28th April, 1988, the Union under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 appealed this recommendation to the
Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on 20th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job description of M&GAs makes no reference to a
requirement to carry out painting duties. The painting of
walls, doors and windows has never been part of their normal
work practice. The workers who transferred from the mint
department did not carry out extensive painting work but
simply did small painting jobs such as touch-ups etc.
2. M&GAs were not told at the time of their recruitment that
painting work would be required of them. At that time there
were still contractors in both buildings including skilled
painters. This could have started a conflict with the
painters' Union.
3. To carry out the painting work required, would virtually
turn the M&GAs into full-time painters.
4. In a productivity agreement concluded between management
and the Union in 1980, the subject of painting was never
discussed. An I.P.C. report makes no mention of painting
duties thereby attaching no significance in productivity terms
to such work by M&GA's.
3. 5. It is established custom and practice for the Central Bank
to employ qualified painters to carry out painting work. The
Bank's premises in Sandyford was awarded a gold medal for
Architecture and Interior Design and it seems fitting to
continue to have these buildings painted by skilled personnel
trained for such work rather than to expect unskilled
personnel to undertake such work as part of their normal
duties.
6. The Bank submits that due to economic cutbacks and the
cost of hiring painting contractors that it would be cheaper
to get the M&GA's to carry out this work. The Union does not
accept this argument and considers that it is within the
Bank's capacity to employ skilled painters.
7. If painting is officially declared to be the work of
M&GA's, the workers submit that the effect would be to change
their industrial classification and job description from
M&GA's to that of painter.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is clearly pointed out at recruitment time that
painting is one of the jobs which fall within the general
duties of machine and general assistants.
2. Painting of frames, brackets, pipes and making good after
other maintenance work, is being carried out by the M&GA's at
present. The Bank cannot understand why the M&GAs are
refusing to do general painting duties, such as reception area
and offices in Sandyford, during normal working hours when
these duties can be scheduled to fit in with the workload.
3. Such painting work has been done by the M&GAs in the past
(around 1985) when they painted the army guard room in
Sandyford. For two years M&GAs while on transfer to
maintenance from the mint, extensive painting of the Bank's
Sandyford premises was carried out during normal working
hours.
4. In 1980, the M&GA's were granted a 6.25% increase as a
result of an Irish Productivity Centre investigation and
report and this productivity increase was granted in return
for the M&GAs' flexibility and cooperation in their work.
They are now in breach of this flexibility and cooperation
agreement.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
does not find sufficient grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___15th___July,___1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman