Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88959 Case Number: LCR12301 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NEW DUBLIN GAS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of approximately one hundred workers for a pay increase.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that there is any appreciable
increase in overall responsibility associated with the changed
working practices. However, the Court feels that some recompense
is warranted and therefore recommends that a sum of #250 be paid
to each of the claimants in recognition of their co-operation in
introducing the new procedures.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88959 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12301
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NEW DUBLIN GAS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately one hundred workers for a pay
increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the Consumer Service
Department of the Dublin Gas as gas fitters and chargehand gas
fitters. They are engaged in carrying out all forms of gas
fitting work as well as the primary investigation of gas escapes
both indoors and outdoors. The Raglan House explosion on New
Years Day, 1987, which was caused by an escape of gas, resulted in
a firm of consultant engineers and scientists being commissioned
by the Minister for Energy to investigate the accident and the
procedures and work practices within Dublin Gas for dealing with
gas escapes. In their report, the Consultants recommended, inter
alia, that the gas escape procedures be revised. This was done by
the Company. The Union, on behalf of the workers concerned,
served a claim for a 5% increase in pay to compensate them for the
additional responsibilities involved. The Company rejected the
claim. As no agreement could be reached at local level the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
basis for a settlement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 13th December, 1988 and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held on 20th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the new procedures gas fitters and chargehand
fitters are obliged to classify escapes. This function was
previously carried out by a mains foreman. It is a vital
decision as it immediately determines what action must be
taken to deal with the escape.
2. Decisions as to classification of escapes are taken in
situations where life and property can be at risk. It would
not be unusual for a gas fitter to evacuate premises in a
serious escape situation. In the context of the gas industry
as a whole, it would be difficult to find people charged with
more responsible or more onerous decision making then those
responsible for classification of escapes.
3. 3. The Union contends that if the Company wishes to
transfer a responsibility so onerous that it could previously
only be performed by a mains foreman to the fitters it must be
prepared to compensate them for accepting such
responsibilities. In this context the Union maintains that
the claim for a 5% increase is reasonable.
4. This change in responsibilities did not result from the
Viability Agreement, which came into effect in October, 1986,
but rather was directly related to the Raglan House explosion.
5. The Union sought a deferral of the implementation of the
new procedures but, as the Company indicated it would not
accept any delay in their implementation, the Union decided to
implement them under protest.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In October, 1986, as a result of the Viability
Agreement, the entire position radically changed for all
employees in the Company. Over 500 voluntary redundancies
were effected and there was a major re-negotiation of work
practices. These changes required employees to accept
additional responsibilities, improved productivity and
withdrawal of benefits. No other section or category of
worker in the utility has been compensated for these changes
in work practices.
2. The tragic incident in Raglan House meant that further
changes had to take place. The consultants made many
recommendations as a result of their enquiry. These
recommendations were implemented in full. This meant that
inferior practices which had been acceptable in the past were
replaced by practices and procedures which clearly defined
roles and responsibilities. These changes affected all
workers in the Company. No category of worker has been
compensated for these changes.
3. The gas fitter was always the first person on site in
response to a reported gas escape. He carried out an
assessment of the situation in order to determine what action
should be taken. The new procedures do not change this
responsibility except that they give specific guidelines to
Company personnel and instil a clarity to the situation which
was not in place heretofore. The fitters, by virtue of their
training, are capable of carrying out the work.
4. 4. The Company is operating at a loss at present (details
supplied). Capital expenditure for the coming year is
expected to be in the region of #20m with the bulk of this
being in the area of safety assurance. Legislation requires
the Company to operate profitably but it is unlikely to do so
for some years to come. There is no money available to meet
cost increasing claims.
5. Any concession to a section within the utility for
regrading in respect of the additional duties would result in
a chain reaction throughout the utility.
6. Since the utility management introduced these new
procedures it has stated repeatedly that their implementation
did not involve increased duties or responsibilities and now
wishes to restate this fact.
7. The job classification agreement finalised in October
1985, which included a provision relating to gas fitters and
chargehands, was accepted by all the unions concerned,
including the FWUI. Any concession of this claim would result
in parity claims from all other craft groups who were aligned
under that agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that there is any appreciable
increase in overall responsibility associated with the changed
working practices. However, the Court feels that some recompense
is warranted and therefore recommends that a sum of #250 be paid
to each of the claimants in recognition of their co-operation in
introducing the new procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
28th February, 1989 --------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman