Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88669 Case Number: LCR12104 Section / Act: S67 Parties: M.P. WALSH - and - M.P. WALSH LIMITED;THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for a call out allowance for a fitter's helper.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that it is not essential that the worker
concerned be required to remain continuously on standby but it
does recommend that he be paid a sum of #6 per week to compensate
for his availability.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88669 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12104
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: M.P. WALSH LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a call out allowance for a fitter's
helper.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company concerned in this case operates a full-time
maintenance function at the Lawter Products plant at Grannagh,
Waterford. The Company employs 2 fitters, and one fitter's helper
to carry out this function. The fitters helper is the worker
concerned in this dispute. The fitters are paid #30 per week in
respect of their availability for call-out outside normal working
hours. The workers attendance is not required on every occasion
when there is a call-out, but the Union contends that he is
present 90 to 95% of the time. The Union on behalf of the worker
are claiming that he be given a call-out allowance which would be
proportional to his hourly rate. The Company are not prepared to
concede the claim. Agreement could not be reached at local level,
and on 10th December, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 9th March, 1988, the earliest date
convenient for the parties. Agreement was not reached, and on
30th August, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Waterford on 12th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is satisfied that the current practice in the
Company discriminates against the worker. The Company has
stated that the worker is not a time served craftsman and that
it is not the practice to pay call-out allowance to non
craftsmen. This simply is not the case, as there are very
many examples of where helpers are involved in call-out, in
which case they receive an allowance similar to that paid to
the craftsmen. Differences in the amount of the allowance
paid to the craftsman as against the helper relate to the
difference in their basic hourly rates of pay.
2. The Company contends that there is no obligation on the
worker to respond to a call-out, and therefore he could not
qualify for a call-out allowance. In practice however, the
worker must respond to call-outs where there is a requirement
for a helper, as he is the only worker employed. The worker
is quite willing to be subject to the same call-out conditions
as the fitters, as this would merely formalise the situation
which currently obtains.
3. The worker is entitled to fair play, and cannot be singled
out for special treatment if an inability to pay situation
exists, as the Company has claimed. There is no reason why
the worker should have to shoulder all the financial burden of
any difficulties the Company may be experiencing. The Union
requests that the worker be afforded equal treatment, taking
into account the difference between his pay rate and that of
the fitters, and also the marginal difference in the frequency
of call-out as between himself and the fitters.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned in this case requested to be allowed
to be called in where a job necessitated assistance in order
to enhance earning potential. The owner of the Company
approached Lawter Products on this issue, and they agreed to
the request on the basis that he would only be paid the
minimum call in payment, (i.e. 3 hours at the appropriate
overtime rate). No standby payment would be made. The
Company are now faced with a claim for additional payments in
the form of a stand-by allowance.
2. In the case of the two fitters they are obliged to report
for work in the event of an emergency outside of normal
working hours. No such obligation rests with the worker. The
worker is not called in on every occasion that an emergency
exists.
4. 3. Concession of the claim would undoubtedly lead to
difficulties with the other maintenance personnel. At the
moment two craftsmen are employed, but this could change at
any time thus diluting the current stand-by payment. In
addition general operatives employed by Lawter are often asked
to attend work at short notice to cover emergencies, and these
would also feel entitled to claim.
4. The Company is not aware of any case whereby a stand-by
payment is made to non-qualified craftsmen in similar
circumstances. Indeed normal practice in industry generally
would not support such a claim. Lawter have informed the
Company that they are not prepared to meet the additional cost
involved.
5. The Company itself is not prepared to meet the cost
involved. It is presently experiencing a difficult trading
period, breaking even in the contract maintenance division and
showing losses in the engineering division.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that it is not essential that the worker
concerned be required to remain continuously on standby but it
does recommend that he be paid a sum of #6 per week to compensate
for his availability.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___3rd___November,__1988. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman