Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88943 Case Number: LCR12241 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - FEDERATED WORKER'S UNION OF IRELAND |
Interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has been asked to interpret Recommendation No. 6723
insofar as it applies to the working hours of the worker
concerned. Having heard the submissions of the parties the Court
takes the view that no new facts were advanced which would support
the view that the steward's obligations to work cease at any
particular time on an evening or begin at any specific time in the
morning. Provided only that it ensures that the agreed time off
is made available, the Corporation is correct on assuming him to
be "on duty" at all other times.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88943 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12241
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
FEDERATED WORKER'S UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a house steward in the
Mansion House. In 1980, the Union, on his behalf, served the
following claims on the Corporation:-
"(a) that he should have a basic working week of 40 hours
and any hours worked over 40 to be paid for at overtime
rates, or, alternatively, the negotiation of an all-in
rate considerably in excess of what exists at present
i.e. approximately #40 per week more, with provision
for adequate time off;
(b) the payment of an eating-on-stie allowance, and
(c) compensation for excessive time worked since April,
1980."
At a Labour Court conciliation conference the Corporation proposed
negotiating a rota system which would allow the worker two full
days and two half days off per week plus an increase of
approximately #550 per annum. This proposal was not acceptable to
the Union and the matter was referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. Labour Court
Recommendation No. 6723, issued on 12th November, 1981,
recommended as follows:-
"The Court having regard to the nature of the position,
does not consider that fixed working hours and
eating-on-stie allowance are appropriate to the work of
the house steward and recommends that a roster system
providing for specific time off on the lines of that
proposed at the conciliation conference be agreed
between the parties. The Court does not recommend any
increase in salary."
The Corporation accepted the terms of this Recommendation but
indicated that in order to comply with its terms it would be
necessary to create a post of Assistant House Steward, the holder
of which would deputise for the House Steward on his days off.
Difficulty arose in obtaining the agreement of the three Trade
Unions representing general operatives to the conditions that
would apply to the job of Assistant House Steward. Late in 1983
the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland referred the matter of
implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723 to the
Labour Court. In Recommendation No. 8950, dated 18th June, 1984,
the Court stated:-
"The Court is satisfied that the terms offered by the
Corporation in respect of the post of Assistant House
Steward are fair, reasonable and fully meet the terms
of Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723.
The Court notes that implementation of the proposals
has been delayed by factors outside the control of the
Corporation and the Union. In this regard, the Court
recommends that all parties concerned with the
appointment should accept the offer made by the
Corporation."
In March, 1987 an Assistant House Steward took up duty and a
substitute Assistant House Steward took up duty in December, 1987.
The House Steward, however, felt that the original difficulties in
relation to hours of duty had not been resolved. In December,
1987 he received a letter from the Corporation refusing to grant
time off in lieu for hours worked outside 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.
(details supplied). The difficulty continued in 1988. The
Corporation contends that the House Steward is designated to be
off duty from 8.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Tuesday and from 8.30 a.m. on
Thursday to 2 p.m. on Saturday, and to be "on duty" at all other
times. The Union rejects this. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 13th October, 1988.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 24th
November, 1988 and the matter was referred to a full hearing of
the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 12th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union, on behalf of the House Steward, is seeking
interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723. The
Union considers that the Corporation is misinterpreting this
Recommendation, thus bringing about a worsening of the
conditions of employment of the House Steward as compared with
his conditions prior to the serving of the original claims.
3. 2. In 1980, the Corporation proposed to grant two specific
days off. This was later increased to two full days and two
half days. It was stated in a letter dated 18th September,
1980, that, as a general rule, the House Steward would be
required to commence each morning at 8.30 a.m. and be present
until 11 p.m. unless the Lord Mayor indicated otherwise. The
letter also stated that special functions requiring his
presence would normally conclude shortly after midnight. This
position was repeated in the Corporation's submission to the
Labour Court, prior to the issue of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 6723. It was not suggested at any time
that the House Steward was required to be on duty at all times
other than on his specific days off.
3. A long delay occurred in the implementation of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 6723. It was eventually implemented
in 1987. In December, 1987 the House Steward was refused time
off in lieu of hours worked outside the 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.
band.
4. The House Steward is frequently required to work outside
the hours 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. A detailed list of such occasions
between March, 1987 and January, 1988 was supplied to the
Court. He is required to be available when functions are held
in the Mansion House. Many functions do not conclude until
the early hours of the morning i.e. 3 a.m., 4 a.m. or 5 a.m.
(details supplied).
5. The Corporation's position is that the House Steward is
designated to be "on duty" from 2 p.m. on Saturday to 8.30
a.m. on Tuesday and 2 p.m. on Tuesday to 8.30 a.m. on
Thursday. The Union never accepted such a proposal which
would constitute a worsening of conditions. The Union seeks
clarification of Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723 in this
regard.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation has fully implemented Labour Court
Recommendation No. 6723 in respect of the claims submitted on
behalf of the House Steward. The conditions of employment of
the House Steward clearly provide that specific working hours
could not be established and Labour Court Recommendation No.
6723 stated that fixed working hours are not appropriate to
the job.
2. Labour Court Recommendation No. 8950 stated that the
court was satisfied that the terms offered by the Corporation
in respect of the post of Assistant House Steward were fair
and reasonable and fully met the terms of Labour Court
Recommendation NO. 6723. That the Court recommended that all
parties concerned with the appointment should accept the offer
made by the Corporation.
4. 3. The House Steward has two full days and two half days
off work each week. The Corporation has ensured that a
Substitute Assistant House Steward is available thus ensuring
that any absence from work of the Assistant House Steward does
not affect the granting of days off to the House Steward.
4. The Corporation considered, as stated in its submission
to the Labour Court in November, 1981, that the House Steward
would, as a general rule, be in attendance at 8.30 a.m. each
morning and remain available until 11.00 p.m., unless the Lord
Mayor indicated otherwise or on the occasion of special
functions requiring his presence. As fixed working hours are
not appropriate to the work of the House Steward that, apart
from the specific periods when the House Steward is off duty -
two full days and two half days per week - it is clearly
reasonable and necessary that the House Steward be available
and carry out such duties as arise outside of the specific
periods when he is off duty, without any extra payment. This
is clearly in line with Labour Court Recommendation No. 6723,
which did not recommend any increase in pay.
5. The Corporation accepted and accepts that the House
Steward is entitled to be absent from the Mansion House during
any period that he is off duty each week. As the House
Steward is normally granted the full days off duty on
Thursdays and Fridays and one of the half days on Saturday the
Corporation accepts that normally he is entitled to be absent
continuously from the Mansion House from 8.30 a.m. on a
Thursday until 2.00 p.m. on a Saturday, a total continuous
period of 53.50 hours off duty. The remaining half day is
normally granted on a Tuesday morning.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has been asked to interpret Recommendation No. 6723
insofar as it applies to the working hours of the worker
concerned. Having heard the submissions of the parties the Court
takes the view that no new facts were advanced which would support
the view that the steward's obligations to work cease at any
particular time on an evening or begin at any specific time in the
morning. Provided only that it ensures that the agreed time off
is made available, the Corporation is correct on assuming him to
be "on duty" at all other times.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
31st January, 1989 ---------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman