Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89474 Case Number: LCR12529 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Rates of payment for overtime in respect of library guards.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, whilst noting that the payment is contrary to
general College policy, takes the view that in the case of the
library guards is sufficiently well established by custom and
practice as to be considered a valid condition of their
employment. The Court recommends therefore that it should
continue pending a negotiated agreement to change the terms of
their employment should the College wish to introduce standard
terms for this group of workers.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89474 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12529
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Rates of payment for overtime in respect of library guards.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are two categories of overtime worked by library guards
at T.C.D. i.e. rostered overtime and non-rostered overtime.
Rostered overtime is calculated on the consolidated rate i.e basic
rate plus shift premium but non rostered overtime is calculated on
basic only. This dispute concerns the rate payable for
non-rostered overtime.
The Union contends that in 1980 the then Chief Librarian (now
deceased) made a local agreement to pay non-rostered overtime at
the higher rate as applied to rostered overtime in return for
concessions from the Union. In practice all rostered and
non-rostered overtime was paid at the higher rostered rate from
1980 until 1988 when the rate of overtime payment was disputed by
the College. The College contends that there is no record of the
alleged local agreement made by the then Chief Librarian, that
such agreement would be highly irregular and that all non-rostered
overtime should be paid at the basic hourly rate only.
On 8th March, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 3rd May, 1989 from which the following settlement proposals
emanated:-
(a) the two special periods of week-end overtime associated
with examinations (the Berkley Library in May-June and
the 1937 Reading Room in September) should be regarded as
part of an annual roster and, accordingly, overtime
should be paid on the consolidated rate (basic plus
shift) in line with Labour court Recommendation 4798,
(b) all other miscellaneous non rostered overtime should be
paid on the basic rate only,
(c) these proposals are without prejudice to the right of
either party to raise issues of concern in regard to
specific work projects.
These proposals were rejected by the Union and following a further
conciliation conference on 19th June, 1989 at which agreement was
not reached, the matter was referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court which took place on 1st August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1980 the then Chief Librarian had a local agreement
with the Union shop stewards to pay all overtime worked by the
library guards at the rostered rate. This agreement had the
force and authority of the College management behind it.
3. 2. The library guards have enjoyed the benefits of this
agreement for the last eight years. The College is wrong to
take away benefits which have been custom and practice in the
College on the grounds that the agreement did not exist.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 26th July, 1978, the Labour Court issued L.C.R. No.
4798 in relation to a claim by the Union on behalf of the
College porters. The Court recommended the implementation of
settlement terms proposed by the College, which included the
consolidation of basic pay and shift payments for the purposes
of calculating overtime arising from rostered duties only.
The settlement terms were subsequently applied to the library
guards and other staff who were paid on the same wage scale as
the porters. That Recommendation was, and remains, the basis
for the College's policy in relation to consolidated overtime
payments.
4. 2. There is no record of the alleged agreement in 1980
between the then Chief Librarian and the Union shop stewards.
Such an agreement would be highly irregular and does not
constitute a proper basis for the proper running of the
College.
4. 3. On 8th March, 1979 a written instruction that the basic
hourly rate for non-rostered overtime should apply was issued
to the Chief Library Guard. When it was discovered that the
College's instruction was not being implemented the matter was
raised with the Union on 24th August, 1988 and the present
dispute followed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, whilst noting that the payment is contrary to
general College policy, takes the view that in the case of the
library guards is sufficiently well established by custom and
practice as to be considered a valid condition of their
employment. The Court recommends therefore that it should
continue pending a negotiated agreement to change the terms of
their employment should the College wish to introduce standard
terms for this group of workers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
23rd August, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.