Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87745 Case Number: LCR11951 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of four drivers for maintenance of driving rates of pay while redeployed to work on road maintenance.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court has also had regard to the provisions of the Code of
Practice on Security of Employment and to the financial
constraints under which the Council at present operates.
In all the circumstances the Court is of the view that the Council
did not act unreasonably in this case and accordingly the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87745 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11951
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of four drivers for maintenance of driving
rates of pay while redeployed to work on road maintenance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council, because of cutbacks in its Road Grant allocation,
laid off nineteen drivers employed in the Machinery Yard and on
Refuse Collection trucks in September, 1987.
3. In February, 1988, the Council was in a position to offer jobs
as road workers (which had become vacant due to the take up of the
Early Retirement/Voluntary Redundancy Scheme) to the laid-off
drivers on either a permanent or temporary basis. The Council
also stated that if workers took these jobs on a temporary basis
it would not interfere with their being recalled to driving duties
when they became available.
4. Four drivers availed of the Council's offer of temporary
employment as road labourers and worked up to 5th April, 1988,
when along with the other laid-off drivers they resumed driving
duties.
5. The workers concerned, while employed on road works were paid
the labourer's rate of pay. The Union claimed that these workers
should have maintained the drivers rate of pay while employed on
road works. The Council rejected the claim.
6. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 17th February, 1988. A Conciliation Conference
was held on 19th May, 1988. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Kilkenny on 21st
June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers concerned were compulsorily laid-off and
later given the choice to remain on lay-off or return to road
workers sections at lower rates of pay. In all cases, the
workers had no choice in the matter and the lay-off and
redeployment was compulsory.
2. The Council had an obligation to honour the Code of
Practice on Security of Employment for Servant Grades within
the Local Authorities and the Union indicated its willingness
to negotiate within this agreement if the Council wished an
accommodation.
3. The redeployment was considered unsuitable because of pay
rates. This forced the workers into a choice of accepting
unsuitable redeployment or seeking redundancy. If the job is
considered unsuitable and the only alternative is redundancy,
then this is forced redundancy. The Court has already found
in a number of cases that forced redundancy is contrary to
the Programme for National Recovery.
4. While redeployment has taken place in other Local
Authorities in all cases that the Union is aware of the rates
of pay of the workers redeployed was maintained. Counties
where agreement was reached on maintenance of rates of pay
include, Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal, Roscommon, Louth, Wexford,
Laois and Tipperary S.R.
5. While redeployments are small in number, the Union is
seeking to establish the principle that in this and other
cases, workers redeployed must maintain the rates of pay for
the grades in which they were previously employed where the
previous rate of pay was higher. The Union therefore
respectfully requests the Court to recommend accordingly.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Concession of the claim would in effect mean that workers
doing the same work would be paid at different rates.
2. Should a situation arise in the future where an offer of
employment as road labourer could be made, the Council will
have to reconsider its position if the Court decides that
drivers may retain their rate of pay while working as road
labourers.
3. Drivers who were laid off had three choices -
(i) They could remain on lay-off and await recall to
duty as drivers.
(ii) They could accept the Council's offer of
permanent/ temporary employment as road workers at
the rate appropriate to the grade.
(iii) They could have opted for the Early Retirement/
Voluntary Redundancy Scheme.
It should be noted that the four drivers chose to accept the
Council's offer of temporary employment as road labourers at
the rate appropriate to the grade.
4. Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects
on other authorities.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court has also had regard to the provisions of the Code of
Practice on Security of Employment and to the financial
constraints under which the Council at present operates.
In all the circumstances the Court is of the view that the Council
did not act unreasonably in this case and accordingly the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th July, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman