Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88447 Case Number: LCR11970 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for the payment of overtime to two porters.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that in this case the College changed an
established custom and practice relating to overtime working
without prior agreement or consultation. In these circumstance
the Court recommends concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88447 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11970
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the payment of overtime to two porters.
BACKGROUND:
2. During the Easter holiday period of 1988 the porters in
University College Dublin were rostered to work from 28th March to
30th March; their hours of work being 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
During the holiday period, arrangements were made to allow the
admittance of people attached to the Chemistry department into the
laboratory area before 10.30 a.m. The people concerned were
admitted by laboratory staff who were keyholders to the building.
The Union contended that one man in particular took responsibility
for this duty. It claimed that this was work proper to the
porters and protested at the arrangements. It also contended that
there was an established working practice, going back to 1981,
whereby the porters worked overtime if necessary during the
holiday periods. The Union claimed that the College was
unilaterally altering established custom and practice.
On each of the three days on which the early admittance took
place, the two porters concerned presented themselves for work at
9.00 a.m.. They then claimed overtime at double-time for the
period 9.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. each day. The claim was rejected
by the College authorities on the grounds that the porters had not
been requested to present themselves for work at 9.00 a.m. but
rather at 10.30 a.m. Agreement was not reached at local level and
on 26th April, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 27th May, 1988. No agreement was reached and on 9th June,
1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 15th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that outside normal working hours there
are key holders other than porters. In this instance however
an individual was specifically designated to do the work
proper to the members of the Union. The work of letting
people in and out is clearly that of the porters and they
presented themselves in time to carry out their duties.
2. It is established custom and practice that the porters
work outside normal working hours when required during holiday
periods (details supplied to Court).
3. The porters grade in the College have taken the brunt of
financial restrictions. They have faced continuing cutbacks
in overtime, staff levels and conditions of employment. The
Union regards this instance as being particularly provocative.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The porters concerned in this dispute were instructed to
report for duty not at 9.00 a.m. but at 10.30 a.m. Their
attendance at the earlier time was of their own volition, and
was not required. The College cannot accept that any worker
should be able to create overtime for themselves without
authorisation.
2. Individuals other than porters have held keys to the
science building for years and there is nothing unusual in
gaining access to the building outside the normal working
hours of the porters.
3. Due to financial cutbacks, the College is seeking to
reduce overtime. It could not consider paying overtime to
porters who attended outside of the rostered hours, when their
services were not required. The College requests the Court to
confirm its rejection of the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that in this case the College changed an
established custom and practice relating to overtime working
without prior agreement or consultation. In these circumstance
the Court recommends concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
______________________
26th July, 1988. Chairman
P.F./J.C.