Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87876 Case Number: LCR11733 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS GROUP;REPRESENTING STATE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES |
Claim by the Union Group on behalf of approximately 3,000 workers that safety footwear be provided free of charge.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having regard to all the circumstances of the case,
does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87876 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11733
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
and
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS GROUP
(Representing State Industrial Employees)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union Group on behalf of approximately 3,000
workers that safety footwear be provided free of charge.
BACKGROUND:
2. At present a worker contributes 50% of the cost of safety
steel toe-capped boots and shoes (the wholesale cost). The
footwear is replaced once a year. If the footwear becomes
defective during the year it is replaced free of charge if an
employing officer recommends it.
3. The Union Group lodged a claim that the footwear be provided
free of charge at a Joint Industrial Council (J.I.C.) for State
Industrial Employees meeting held on 5th May, 1987, at which they
said that they did not consider it proper that a worker should
have to pay for safety at work.
4. The Departments responded that as the footwear was available
for private use it was only reasonable that a worker should
contribute to part of the cost.
5. The claim was discussed further at a subsequent J.I.C. meeting
held on the 9th June, 1987, and rejected by the Government
Departments.
6. Both parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 18th February, 1988, a date suitable to all parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is, under the Safety in Industry Act, an obligation
on the employer to provide a safe working environment. It is
difficult to reconcile this requirement with the position of
the Department of Finance. The legal obligation on the
employer must surely imply that safety equipment should be
issued free.
2. Safety footwear should not be treated in a different way
to any other item of safety equipment. There are a number of
employers, including some local authorities where free issues
of safety footwear are made where the need arises. The
workers concerned work either in an outdoor environment, or a
workshop environment. We would submit to the Court that the
provision of a safe working environment in such areas require
the employer to provide safety footwear. We consider it
reasonable, given the legal situation and custom and
practice, that such footwear should be provided free.
DEPARTMENTS ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The practice of requiring that employees make a
contribution towards the cost of footwear is not confined to
Government Departments and, for instance, the same practice
is adopted by other public sector organisations. Many
private sector employers require that employees contribute
towards the cost of footwear. For instance, under an
agreement between unions and the Construction Industry
Federation, building workers in the private sector are
required to make such a contribution. This is particularly
relevant to the present claim as many of the workers covered
by the claim are related to building workers for pay
purposes.
2. The cost of the employee's contribution towards footwear
is small as the contribution is based on the cost to the
Department concerned of purchasing the footwear and not on
the retail price as is common in other employments. In
general the employee's contribution is about #8 p.a. at
present and this represents only slightly in excess of 25% of
the retail price. It is submitted that a contribution of
this order is not excessive particularly as footwear of the
highest quality is supplied.
3. In supplying footwear Departments have endeavoured to
provide an all purpose boot and shoe to employees where this
is warranted by work requirements. In practice a liberal
approach has been taken to the supply of footwear and
employees who are not exposed to risk of injury to their feet
(e.g. stores employees) are supplied with footwear. If
issues were to be restricted to safety grounds alone then a
considerably smaller quantity of footwear would be issued.
Furthermore, free issues of special safety footwear are made
where special hazards apply (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having regard to all the circumstances of the case,
does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th March, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman