Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88317 Case Number: LCR11921 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
(a) Claim, on behalf of approximately fifteen non-appointed personnel for the introduction of a paid sick leave scheme. (b) Claim, on behalf of six workers on security duty, for additional clothing.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:
Claim (a) - Sick Pay - In view of the Commissioners recent
introduction of seven days uncertified paid sick
leave, the Court recommends that the Union defer
pursuing its claim until the expiry of the
Programme for National Recovery when the claim can
be lodged in light of the circumstances then
existing.
Claim (b) - Clothing - The Court recommends the supply of
one additional pair of pants and two shirts per
annum.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88317 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11921
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (a) Claim, on behalf of approximately fifteen non-appointed
personnel for the introduction of a paid sick leave
scheme.
(b) Claim, on behalf of six workers on security duty, for
additional clothing.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Under the terms of the 26th wage round, it was agreed that the
Union could pursue a claim for a sick leave scheme for the
non-appointed staff and this claim together with the one for
additional clothing for workers on security duty was the subject
of unsuccessful local level discussions. On the 26th February,
1988, the Union referred both issues to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. No progress was made at a conciliation
conference on the 6th April and the matters was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Limerick on the 24th May, 1988.
Claim (a) Introduction of a paid sick leave scheme for
non-appointed personnel.
BACKGROUND:
3. Appointed staff pay a reduced rate of P.R.S.I. and have a paid
sick leave scheme which provides for payment in respect of up to
thirteen weeks certified sick leave per year and seven days
uncertified leave. The claimants pay the full rate of P.R.S.I.
(Class A1) and are eligible for social welfare payments during
periods of sick leave. The parties recently negotiated the
introduction of an uncertified sick leave scheme of 7 days in any
twelve month period (effective from 1st April, 1988). The
Commissioners rejected the Union's claim for the introduction of a
paid sick leave scheme for the claimants.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The conditions of employment and remuneration for the job
are the same for both appointed and non-appointed staff but
while the former enjoy the normal safeguard of pension
entitlement under the Superannuation Scheme, sick pay
entitlements of thirteen weeks full pay (yearly) and thirteen
weeks half pay, the latter have no entitlement whatsoever.
2. There is no agreed method or guidelines laid down as to
how the claimants would qualify for appointment. The
Commissioners have sole power of discretion in this area and
the length of service of those involved shows how long they
have worked for the Commissioners without being appointed
(claimants' service ranges from one year to 18 years).
3. At present in all Local Authorities and semi State bodies,
qualifying periods of service for sick pay entitlements apply.
For instance in the Local Authority, 131 days in a year is
sufficient for entitlements. The practice in these
employments is to supplement social welfare payments so that
workers would have net take-home pay.
4. The Union has tried in vain over the last 18 months to
resolve this issue, but without success. What it has achieved
is an uncertified sick leave entitlement of seven days for the
claimants.
5. Most of the claimants are married with families to
support. When they are out on sick leave all they have to
depend on is social welfare payments, which in most cases
means a substantial loss in money. The high cost of paying
doctors' fees, medication and prescription costs also adds to
their problems.
COMMISSIONER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The newly introduced uncertified sick leave scheme,
coupled with the social welfare payments, provide adequate
protection for the claimants.
2. There has been widespread absenteeism amongst the staff
over a number of years, even when loss of wages was involved,
which deterred Management from getting involved in
negotiations. Even since the introduction of the new scheme,
the Commissioners' fears regarding potential abuse of any
scheme has not been allayed.
Claim (b) - additional clothing for men on security
duties.
BACKGROUND:
6. At present the claimants receive an annual issue of a pair of
boots, uniform jacket and pants and oilskin jacket and pants. In
addition, every five years they receive an overcoat and cap. The
Union is seeking an improvement viz. one tunic, three pairs of
pants, three shirts, two ties, a raincoat every two years, a heavy
coat every three years and two pairs of comfortable footwear. The
Commissioners rejected the claim although they did agreed that the
replacement overcoat (floater jacket) would be provided on a more
frequent basis where wear and tear warranted it.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The claimants' duties involve security on the main Dock
gates. Conditions are quite dirty, especially considering the
type of cargoes coming into the dock, e.g. animal feeds, coal
etc.
2. They also have to patrol the harbour buildings and in
windy conditions their uniforms get dirty very quickly. They
have to wash and clean same and are expected to be clean and
presentable at all times.
3. In most security companies it is duly acknowledged that
additional clothing is required. This has also been
recognised by most Local Authorities, for example Firemen and
Traffic Wardens.
COMMISSIONER'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Union claim was rejected because of the cost increase
implications for the Commissioners and because the present
issue was considered to be sufficient.
2. The annual issue of protective clothing (oilskins) should
protect the present issue, bearing in mind that the duties
involved for uniformed staff are generally of a non-manual
nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:
Claim (a) - Sick Pay - In view of the Commissioners recent
introduction of seven days uncertified paid sick
leave, the Court recommends that the Union defer
pursuing its claim until the expiry of the
Programme for National Recovery when the claim can
be lodged in light of the circumstances then
existing.
Claim (b) - Clothing - The Court recommends the supply of
one additional pair of pants and two shirts per
annum.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
27th June, 1988. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.