Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88408 Case Number: LCR12046 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL INDUSTRI PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of an electrical supervisor for a "call out" allowance of £800 p.a., and also for the provision of a Company telephone.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that as the claimant is not called in to
the Company's premises in the same way as those who are paid an
"on call" allowance, he is not entitled to be paid an allowance.
The Court also does not recommend concession of the claim for a
Company telephone.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88408 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12046
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NATIONAL INDUSTRI PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of an electrical supervisor for a
"call out" allowance of £800 p.a., and also for the provision of a
Company telephone.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company are electrical manufacturers involved in the
production of power transformers and fluorescent light fittings.
The employee is a supervisor with direct responsibility for all
electrical work, quality, testing and maintenance. Two
electricians who are responsible to the supervisor have a
permanent call out allowance of £800 per annum. The supervisor
has been periodically consulted at his home by the electricians
regarding the course of action to be taken in solving various
electrical problems at the plant. The Union is claiming that
these consultations effectively place the supervisor in a call out
situation and are therefore claiming a call out allowance of £800
p.a. on his behalf. The Union also claims that the supervisor
should be provided with a Company telephone. The Company totally
rejects the claim and argues that the supervisor is not required
to be on call, but is expected to respond to emergencies, without
being part of a formal call out system. As no agreement could be
reached in discussions at local level the dispute was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 21st November,
1987. The parties responded to the conciliation officer's
invitation on the 24th April, 1988. A conciliation conference was
held on the 18th May, 1988 but no agreement was reached. The
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 30th May, 1988. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Waterford on the 14th September, 1988, the earliest date
suitable to all parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The supervisor has been periodically called-out, that is
to say his home has been visited for consultation and
direction in problem solving when difficulties have arisen at
the plant. Despite the absence of an allowance he has never
refused to react to a situation, and even recently had to do
so during a family bereavement.
2. The Union would argue that it is neither logical or fair
that the supervisor responsible for all electrical work, who
is expected to respond to call out in whatever fashion,
whether it is a midnight call for direction or an on plant
issue, is not paid a call-out allowance while the electricians
that he supervises have such an allowance. Were the call out
allowance and provision of a Company telephone to be
conceded other supervisors have given a guarantee that they
would not use it as a base for a claim in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's call out arrangements as currently operated
(and which do not involve the supervisor) are satisfactory and
there is no merit in changing them. All employees at a
certain level of responsibility are expected to respond in
emergencies and in exceptional circumstances without being
part of a formal call out system and without necessarily
making formal claims for payment.
2. The occasions on which the supervisor has based his claim
(details of which have been supplied to the Court) were not
actual call out situations. The system in place which
involves two electricians and two fitters securing the plant
in the event of mechanical or electrical failures, has
operated satisfactorily for fourteen years. Even if the
supervisor were in the call out system he is not permitted to
work "hands on" on any job. The Union has also claimed that
the Company should provide a telephone for the supervisor.
The Company's response is that since there is no necessity to
have any more employees involved in the system, this would be
a completely unjustifiable expense.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that as the claimant is not called in to
the Company's premises in the same way as those who are paid an
"on call" allowance, he is not entitled to be paid an allowance.
The Court also does not recommend concession of the claim for a
Company telephone.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
30th September, 1988.
T.O'D./J.C. Deputy Chairman