Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88341 Case Number: LCR11964 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 2 park attendants for restoration of the value of an unsocial hours allowance, and the introduction of an additional allowance for Sunday working.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the fact that the premium recommended by the
Court in 1979, has since been adjusted to the fullest extent
possible under the various wage increases since that date, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88341 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11964
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORK CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 2 park attendants for
restoration of the value of an unsocial hours allowance, and the
introduction of an additional allowance for Sunday working.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1979, the Labour Court, in L.C.R. No. 5092, recommended an
unsocial hours allowance to park attendants of £6 per man per
week. The Union maintains that this represented 10% of their
basic pay at the time. However, with subsequent pay increases the
percentage allocated to unsocial hours has declined. The Union
claims that the allowance should be increased to 10% of current
basic pay to maintain its value. The Corporation rejected the
claim on the basis that the spirit and letter of Recommendation
5092 has been maintained and that under the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery it is precluded from meeting the claim. The
matter was referred on 25th February, 1988, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 23rd March, 1988. Subsequent to
the conciliation conference the Union advised that in addition to
the claim for a revision of the allowance, it was also seeking the
payment of a Sunday premium. This claim was also rejected by the
Corporation. On 9th May, 1988, both claims were referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 21st June, 1988, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basis for the original claim was that the attendants'
work hours rota was highly unsociable with its long spreadover
of hours and the obligation to work weekends. Recognising the
case made, the Court awarded an allowance amounting to 10% of
basic pay at that time. The allowance now stands at 6.09% of
basic. In money terms the £6 is now worth £9.40. Had it
retained its value it would be worth £15.41. Ironically, the
consolidation of the allowance into basic pay which was
neither sought nor agreed with the Union has served to ensure
its erosion rather than protection.
2. The duty rota and duties of the post have remained
essentially the same since 1979. The original award was made
on the basis of a given level of unsociability which has
continued until now and will continue in the future. Indeed,
the Corporation accepts that the level of unsociability is at
least equal to what it was in 1979. In these circumstances
the Union can see no reasonable argument against maintaining
the value of the allowance, especially since this would only
cost £12 per week in total.
3. Part of the original claim was for weekend payments on
account of the personal and social importance of free
weekends. The Union has modified this to a claim for extra
payment for Sunday working because, while there is a lot of
acceptance of Saturday working in return for a different day
off in many sectors of employment, Sunday is traditionally a
"day of rest" and is of far greater significance in terms of
family and personal and social arrangements. This is
reflected in conditions of employment by way of high premium
payments for Sunday work. Where Sunday work is part of a
normal 40 hour rota there are numerous cases where extra is
paid for it on top of a shift premium. (Details provided to
the Court).
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The basic reason that the difference between the
attendants' rate of pay and that of the general operative has
been eroded in percentage terms, has been the policy of
structuring the terms of successive pay agreements in favour
of the lower paid. This has had the cumulative effect of
seriously diminishing the percentage differentials between
rates for various grades. This is widespread and to concede
this claim would negate the deliberate intent of successive
wage agreements and give rise to numerous repercussive claims.
2. The hours of work do not constitute a shift work pattern
so the payment of a shift allowance is not warranted. The
attendants, in annual terms work some 147 hours less than a
strict 5 day 40 hour fixed week would oblige them to work.
This together with the rate of pay set for the job is in the
Corporation's view a fair rate of pay for the job.
3. The rate for the job includes an element for unsocial
hours which always included Sunday working. Nothing has
changed to warrant the payment of an additional allowance
which is not made in any other section of the Corporation or
elsewhere in the local service for this type of duty.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the fact that the premium recommended by the
Court in 1979, has since been adjusted to the fullest extent
possible under the various wage increases since that date, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
19th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.