Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89433 Case Number: LCR12540 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CUAN MHUIRE - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim on behalf of two night supervisors for the payment of a night duty allowance of time and one quarter.
Recommendation:
Having regard to the fact that the claimants were employed at
a rate for the job the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89433 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12540
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CUAN MHUIRE
(Represented by the Department of Education)
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two night supervisors for the payment of
a night duty allowance of time and one quarter.
BACKGROUND:
2. Cuan Mhuire is an assessment centre for female offenders
under the age of sixteen who are referred by the Courts. A Board
appointed by the Minister for Education manages the centre and is
responsible for its overall operation.
3. The role of night supervisors is to provide a live internal
night security presence at the centre. They have a seven day
liability and work from 9.45 p.m. to 8 .45 a.m. weekdays and from
9.45 p.m. to 9.45 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Each night a
residential care staff member on "sleep-in" and one night
supervisor on live duty are present in the centre. The claimants
work a forty hour week.
4. The Union first raised the issue of a night duty allowance
in May, 1988. Following the failure of local discussions the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 1st November, 1988. A conciliation conference on
the 17th January, 1989, was adjourned and on the 8th June, the
parties agreed to have the matter referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 10th August,1989 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The unsocial hours payment is widely implemented in the
public services, the most obvious group being the nursing
grades in the health services. Furthermore, the claimants
are currently paid other appropriate unsocial hours
payments (details supplied to the Court).
2. The unsocial hours payment for night work is also paid
to those who work permanent nights, for example nurse
attendants and night telephonists. Therefore, the fact
that the claimants are on permanent nights does not
preclude them from entitlement to this payment.
3. When the claimants' salary was established by the
Department of Education it was initially linked to that of
messenger in the civil service, a grade which did not work
nights. Following discussions with the Department of
Education and a review of salary, the relationship is now
with the staff in Albert College who do not have an
on-going commitment to night work. Despite what the
Department might argue, the salary when decided upon did
not take into account the unsocial nature of the job.
4. The claim is justified on the basis of well-established
practice in both the public and private sectors. The Union
requests that the Court recognise the unsocial nature of
the claimants' hours and recommends in their favour with
effect from the implementation date of the Programme for
National Recovery.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. By definition night supervisors work at night. They
were recruited specifically for night work and are paid for
working at night. Their rate of pay was set to take
account of all factors relating to the post, including
duties, responsibilities and working patterns. There can
be no justification for the payment of an additional
allowance for the performance of duties for which they were
recruited and for which they are being paid. The
concession of a night duty allowance would be tantamount to
a double payment for an aspect of the job.
2. Night duty allowances of the type claimed are paid to
health board workers and other public servants (e.g. nurses
and telephonists) who are assigned permanently to night
work but this only applies where the normal duties of the
grade involve day work. Management is not aware of any
case where a premium for night work is paid to a grade
which only works at night.
3. The claimants have a basic pay parity with the grade of
duty officer in Trinity House School. While pay parity
exists, the two jobs are not identical. The duty officers,
among other things, work shifts and are paid a shift
differential of 25%. As the claimants do not work shifts,
there can be no justification for the payment of a
similar differential.
4. The duties and responsibilities of night supervisors
employed in Finglas Children's Centre, are comparable to
those of the claimants. The Labour Court in LCR9963 set
the pay rate of the Finglas Night Supervisors at the
maximum point of the pay scale for duty officers' in
Trinity House School. The Court in setting this rate
obviously took account of the fact that the claimants work
at night. It is submitted, therefore, that the night
supervisors employed in Cuan Mhuire Assessment Centre are
being paid at the level fixed by the Labour Court for
equivalent staff in a similar institution. In these
circumstances it is difficult to justify an increase.
5. Concession of this claim will have costly repercussive
effects in the other special schools for young offenders
and indeed in the public service generally. For instance
any public service grade which only works at night
(e.g.nightwatchmen in Government Departments) would have a
similar claim. Concession of the principle that a 25%
premium should be paid for night work only, will also open
the way for costly claims for increased shift premia from
public service grades on shift regimes. For example, a
premium of 25% for night work only, would appear
inordinately high in comparison with the premium of 27%
which is paid to staff in the Meteorological Office and the
Air Navigation Services Office, for working an onerous
three shift system, alternating between the morning,
evening and night shift.
6. The attention of the Court is drawn to Clause 3.2 of the
1987 Agreement on pay in the Public Service which deals
with the treatment of claims for improvements in pay and
conditions of service. The Court's attention is also drawn
to the elaboration of Clause 3 of that Agreement as agreed
between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Minister
for Finance.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having regard to the fact that the claimants were employed at
a rate for the job the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
4th September, 1989 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman