Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD892 Case Number: LCR12262 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRALEE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for an eating on site allowance on behalf of two swimming pool attendants.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the facilities available and the length of
the lunch hour the Court does not consider that the workers
concerned qualify for the allowance.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD892 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12262
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TRALEE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an eating on site allowance on behalf of two
swimming pool attendants.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 a National Agreement was concluded between the unions
and the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board (L.G.S.N.B.) for
the introduction of an eating on site allowance to general
operatives, craftsmen, supervisors and related grades. The
conditions under which the allowance is payable are as follows:
(i) on all days, including week-end days when meals are
eaten on site. In this regard meal includes tea
breaks, lunch breaks etc,
(ii) where facilities for the partaking of meals in depots
or stores are inadequate or unsatisfactory,
(iii) where the lunch breaks do not exceed 30 minutes,
(iv) where the employee attends for work at least one and a
half hours on either side of the official lunch break.
The Council implemented the Agreement with effect from 18th April,
1988 to craftsmen, and general operatives. The two swimming pool
attendants concerned are employed at Tralee Sports complex. The
Union has had numerous meetings with the Council in an effort to
have the eating on site allowance paid to the two workers. The
Council however has rejected the Union's claim on the grounds that
the workers concerned are not "related grades" as envisaged in the
National Agreement. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue
and the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 22nd August, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on the 11th October, 1988 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 5th January, 1989. A Labour Court hearing
was held in Limerick on the 19th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Although the terms of the National Agreement were
implemented by most local authorities from 1st December, 1987,
the Council were reluctant to accept that their employees
should be included, and steadfastly refused to include three
groups of workers in the payment of the allowance i.e.
traffic wardens, caretakers, and swimming pool attendants.
Eventually the Council agreed to pay the allowance to the
traffic wardens, and caretakers. The Union advised the
Council that the allowance was paid to similar grades in Cork,
Dublin and Limerick, but the Council made it clear that they
were not influenced by these arrangements.
2. The Council have based their refusal to concede the
allowance to the two workers on the grounds that they are not
"craft or general operative or related grades." Swimming pool
attendants receive a differential over that of general
operative to compensate for night and Sunday duty. All
special increases applicable to general operative grades have
been applied to swimming pool attendants over the years.
Their holiday, sick pay, and general conditions of employment
are the same as those applying to the general operative
grades, and as is the case with several groups of general
operatives, their work routine is peculiar to the type of job
they are engaged in. Other local authorities do not have any
difficulty in accepting that their swimming pool attendants
come within the grades covered by the Agreement, therefore the
precedent for paying the allowance is well established.
3. The Council also states that the employees are indoor
workers and are therefore not entitled to the allowance. This
does not debar them from being paid the allowance, as the
qualifying conditions made no mention of whether or not the
employee works indoors or outdoors. It must be emphasised
that there are no adequate canteen facilities available at the
sports complex. The eating on site allowance is paid to a
number of indoor staff in the County Council area (details
supplied to the Court). The L.G.S.N.B. document issued to
local authorities on the 1st December, 1987 as a guide to aid
the uniform application of the eating on site allowance, makes
no reference to either indoor or outdoor workers.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Swimming pool attendants are indoor employees working on
the indoor heated swimming pool. There are significant
differences between their working conditions and those of
general operatives or craftsmen who work from day to day on
different locations (details supplied to the Court). These
workers, unlike swimming pool attendants, spend most of their
time outdoors and have to continue working in all types of
weather.
2. The lunch break of lifeguards is one hour. Reducing the
lunch break to half an hour would necessitate alteration of
time tables and would result in some swimming sessions
commencing on the half-hour. This would cause confusion to
the public and could result in loss of revenue. This
alteration could not be implemented unless other employees of
the sports centre agreed to a corresponding alteration of
their lunch breaks. They would be unlikely to do so without
receiving the eating on site allowance. Facilities for the
taking of meals at the sports centre are adequate.
3. The granting of the eating on site allowance to general
operatives and craftsmen has resulted in significant savings
to local authorities generally which have compensated for the
extra cost. These savings have arisen from the elimination of
delays in resuming work after meal breaks and better use of
daylight hours by working the extra half hour at lunchtime
instead of after 5 p.m. on winter evenings. The grant of the
allowance to the two lifeguards would not have any
compensatory benefit to the Council.
4. Granting the allowance would have serious repercussions.
As already mentioned other employees who work at the sports
centre, and whose work involves administration of the swimming
pool such as clerical staff at reception, would also feel
entitled to claim the allowance. Claims would also be
forthcoming from other categories of clerical worker. Apart
from Dublin and Cork Corporations, where the allowance was
granted prior to being negotiated at national level, the
Council is not aware of any local authority which pays an
eating on site allowance to swimming pool attendants. There
is a significant operating loss in the running of the swimming
pool. Concession of this claim would exacerbate the position
and could lead to closure or curtailment of this important
amenity.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the facilities available and the length of
the lunch hour the Court does not consider that the workers
concerned qualify for the allowance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
8th February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.