Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88135 Case Number: LCR11843 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claims for: (a) retention of number of pump attendants and week-end allowances, (b) retention of number of men on traffic duties on Sarsfield Bridge.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the loss of overtime in the case of
both the Pump Attendants and workers on Traffic Control Duties is
directly due to financial circumstances under which the
Corporation is operating and does not therefore recommend the
payment of compensation for the losses involved.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88135 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11843
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LIMERICK CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for:
(a) retention of number of pump attendants and week-end
allowances,
(b) retention of number of men on traffic duties on
Sarsfield Bridge.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Local level meetings took place on the matters in dispute, no
agreement could be reached and they were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 1st February, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on 10th February, 1988 at which
no progress was made and on 22nd February, 1988 the matters were
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 13th April, 1988.
Claim (a) Pump attendants:
Background:
3. Prior to 12th February, 1988 there were 9 sewerage pumping
stations manned by 3 full-time and 1 part-time attendants. The 3
full-time attendants also monitored the stations on a roster basis
at weekends. For this each attendant received 16 hours overtime
at flat rate, every third weekend. On 19th January, 1988 the
Corporation informed the Union that the working of overtime at
weekends by sewer pump attendants was unnecessary and would be
withdrawn as and from 12th February, 1988. The weekend overtime
was withdrawn on that date and in addition, the part-time
attendant and 1 full-time attendant took voluntary redundancy.
There are currently 10 pumping stations being monitored by 2
full-time attendants. The Union's position is that weekend
working is necessary and should be retained. The Union requested
that the status quo remain pending an investigation, however this
was refused by the Corporation and the workers are presently
carrying out their duties under protest within the new
arrangements.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Most of the sewerage pumping stations have been in use for
a considerable amount of time and would be considered
obsolete by modern standards. Most of the work involved
(details supplied to the Court) is done nearly 20 feet
underground, the workers are also expected to clean unhygienic
objects, there are no toilet facilities and minimum wash up
facilities.
2. The workers have suffered a substantial loss of earnings
which is estimated at being an average gross loss per week of
£36.50. Both workers have been employed as attendants for 15
years and 12 years respectively and due to seniority would
have been eligible for other positions with advantages
attaching to them, however the main reason that they remained
as attendants was due to the allowances which are no longer
available.
3. The Corporation has achieved substantial savings by
reducing the number of attendants from 4 to 2. The workers
concerned now have an extra workload and should be allowed to
retain their weekend allowance.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The day to day monitoring of the pumps by the attendants
entails checking that the pumps are functioning properly and
reporting faults to the machinery department. Prior to 12th
February, 1988 the 3 full-time attendants monitored 2 stations
each and another station was monitored on a part-time basis.
The remaining 2 stations had been completely unmonitored by
the attendants due to a dispute over manning levels some years
ago. These 2 unmonitored stations have proved to be no less
reliable than the monitored stations and indicate the minimal
level of monitoring required.
2. In two stations some packing and greasing of the pumps may
be required by the attendants, however this is minimal and it
is intended that in future the packing will be done by the
fitter mechanics and the greasing will be performed
automatically. Skilled maintenance is carried out by the
fitter mechanics and the reassignment of an additional fitter
mechanic will enable a planned maintenance programme to be
introduced for the sewer pumps in 1988. In addition, the
electrical system of the pump-houses have been upgraded for
greater reliability and improved safety. In these
circumstances and considering the duties involved the
Corporation is satisfied that the current number of attendants
is satisfactory and that weekend overtime is unnecessary.
Claim (b) Traffic duties on Sarsfield Bridge
Background:
6. Prior to 12th February, 1988 a foreman and 2 general
operatives performed traffic duties (details supplied to the
Court) at Sarsfield Bridge from 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. and from
4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.. The workers were rostered weekly for this
duty, Monday to Friday inclusive at overtime rates. During normal
working hours the duties were performed by one general operative
on a roster basis. On 19th January, 1988 the Corporation informed
the Union that one person was sufficient to operate the system
outside normal working hours and that the overtime manning level
would be one person (on weekly roster) as and from 12th February,
1988. Since that date, one person has been on duty outside normal
working hours. The Union's position is that the manning level
should be retained until a new bridge being built nearby is
completed.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
7. 1. Safety is vitally important and there are serious
implications if one man is on duty alone. The manning levels
should be retained pending completion of the new bridge and
both sides should discuss the future traffic control problem.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENT:
8. 1. The system has worked satisfactorily with only one person
on duty outside normal working hours. All parties have been
aware that the traffic arrangements on Sarsfield Bridge were a
temporary measure pending the completion of the third bridge
over the Shannon which is almost complete and will be open
shortly.
CORPORATION'S GENERAL ARGUMENT:
9. The level of central government funding available to the
Corporation has been drastically reduced over the years. The
Corporation had an incoming financial deficit of £2.5 million
for 1988 and only basic maintenance of existing services will
be possible. The Corporation is committed to maintaining
employment but as remuneration accounts for 41.5% of current
expenditure, work practices have had to be reviewed to improve
efficiency and eliminate waste particularly unnecessary
overtime. The Labour Court has previously recommended that no
compensation for loss of overtime should be paid where it is a
result of the financial position of the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the loss of overtime in the case of
both the Pump Attendants and workers on Traffic Control Duties is
directly due to financial circumstances under which the
Corporation is operating and does not therefore recommend the
payment of compensation for the losses involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
6th May, 1988. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.