Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8914 Case Number: LCR12309 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GALWAY CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of five caretakers for the introduction of a shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that since the workers concerned are working
shift, the premium of 16.6% as claimed be paid with effect from
1st February, 1989.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8914 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12309
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GALWAY CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of five caretakers for the introduction of a
shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned work at two leisure centres and are
currently paid the Labourer Category (1) rate. Their hours of
work are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. The
Union sought the introduction of a 16.6% shift allowance but this
was rejected by Management. On the 21st July, 1988, the Union
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. At a conciliation conference on the 20th September
(earliest suitable date) both sides agreed to recommend for
acceptance the following proposal made by the Industrial Relations
Officer:
"The Labourers' rate will apply to future caretakers employed
by the Corporation in community and sports centres. The
present incumbents will retain the #5 additional payment on a
personal basis. In future an additional payment of #5 will
be made in respect of Saturdays worked and #5 in respect of
Sundays worked.
This proposal was made on the basis that both parties agreed
to take it back and recommend it for acceptance to their
respective principals."
However, the workers rejected the proposal and on the 29th
September the Union requested that the matter be referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Corporation agreed to the referral on the 5th January, 1989. A
Court hearing was held in Galway on the 15th February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is fully satisfied that the claimants are
engaged in shift working. It is a two cycle shift - 8 a.m. to
4 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. It involves the same
amount of anti-social working and disturbance as occurs in any
other two cycle shift arrangements. Furthermore, due to
absenteeism, annual leave etc., these shifts are invariably
changed at short notice to provide the Corporation with the
cover it needs.
2. The recognised premium for two cycle shift working in both
industry and the Corporation is 16.6%. The Corporation
already employs caretakers in other locations who work two
cycle shifts and who receive a premium of 16.6%.
3. The Corporation has claimed that the claimants are
carrying out considerably lighter duties than the other
caretakers. While this is rejected by the Union, its main
argument is that the shift premium is paid for anti-social
working hours and disturbance, rather than job content.
4. A productivity agreement was signed in 1981 between the
Union and the Corporation. The agreement provides that the
Corporation may wish to introduce a shift premium but that
this must be negotiated. However, the Corporation has never
at any stage, discussed the staffing or employment conditions
at the leisure centres in question. Management is therefore
in violation of the agreement by bringing in a shift system
without negotiations.
5. This claim predates the Programme for National Recovery
and is therefore not debarred under the Programme's no cost
increasing claims clause.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants' rate of pay i.e. Labourer Category (1)
(currently #146.49 - #156.44 plus #5 per week) has always been
regarded as a fully inclusive rate for the job and intended to
take account of working on a rota system.
2. The duties of the claimants are considered far less
onerous than the duties of the ordinary Labourer Category (1)
who is paid the basic Category 1 rate.
3. The Corporation must have full regard to the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery and particularly to the
Agreement on pay in the Public Service which forms part of
this programme and which prohibits the granting of special
increases and improvements in conditions of employment for any
particular grade, group or individual.
4. The Corporation is at present subject to strict financial
constraints and concession of this claim would put a further
strain on already limited resources.
5. Concession of this claim would have repercussive effects
on other local authorities as such premia are not paid by them
for work of a similar nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that since the workers concerned are working
shift, the premium of 16.6% as claimed be paid with effect from
1st February, 1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
9th March, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
D.H./J.C.