LCR12795

Subject:
Claim for the refund of all pay deductions made from three workers who are employed in the Corporation's Roads Maintenance Section and who left their work site before finishing time on Thursday 17th August, 1989.

Recommendation:
5. In view of the good work-record of the workers concerned and
the fact that this was a first offence, the Court recommends that
the proposed penalty be halved.

Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD90117 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12795

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67


PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION



SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the refund of all pay deductions made from three
workers who are employed in the Corporation's Roads Maintenance
Section and who left their work site before finishing time on
Thursday 17th August, 1989.

BACKGROUND:
2. The hours of duty of general operatives attached to the Roads
Maintenance Section of the Corporation's Roads and Traffic
Department are 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. Monday to Friday, with half
an hour break in the middle of the working day. General
Operatives finish work at 4.00 p.m. on Thursdays in order to cash
their pay cheques. The workers concerned with the dispute were
employed in the Harolds Cross area on 17th August, 1989 and were
due to finish work at 4.00 p.m. In the course of inspections on
that afternoon an Assistant Inspector discovered that the three
workers had left their work site before 3.52 p.m. Following a
disciplinary hearing the Corporation (Senior Engineer, Roads
Maintenance Section) decided to deduct pay for (A) 22 minutes and
(B) for one hour travelling time, from the three workers
concerned. The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court
conciliation conference on 9th February, 1990. No agreement was
reached. The Union was prepared to refer the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation but the Corporation considered the
particular course of action inappropriate. The Union requested a
full Court hearing, to which the Corporation agreed. The Court
investigated the dispute on 10th April, 1990.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three workers have worked together as a squad for
twelve months and were recognised as being good workers. The
supervisor (one of the three in dispute) has an excellent
record for work output of squads whom he supervises. There
has never been a single occasion to discipline or reprimand
this particular squad in the past. The Union contend that in
face of such an excellent record and the fact that the
incident was a first infringement, a reprimand should suffice.

3. 2. The Corporation argue that there is no disciplinary
discretion for infringements of this nature and that pay
deductions are automatic. No employer would put themselves in
a position where staff receive the same punishment
irrespective of the gravity or the number of offences.
Deductions of pay or travel allowance is not automatic.
Wording from documents relating to travelling time payments
state:-

"The Corporation will consider whether payment of the
allowance should be withdrawn".

"Consideration should be given to withdrawing payment
of the allowance".

In Labour Court recommendation No. 7670, the Corporation's policy
is summarised as having:-

"reserved the right to withhold the payment in certain
circumstances".

"the Corporation maintains that it reserves the right
to withhold the payment of travelling time".

3. Pay cheques arrived for the three men just before 4.00 p.m. on
17th August, 1989. They stopped work to collect their cheques and
the supervisor, who had no watch on that day, asked the time
keeper what time it was. He was told that it was 3.50 p.m. The
squad then collected the tools and put them in the overnight site
shed. When cycling down Leinster Road the supervisor saw the
Rathmines Town Hall clock and realised that they had left the site
a few minutes early. Eventhough the squad had only left work a
few minutes before finishing time, they were deducted 22 minutes
ordinary pay and one hour's pay in travelling time. The workers
concerned should only receive a first time reprimand and all
deductions should be refunded to them.

CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Employees of the Corporation are entitled to be paid the
rate of wages appropriate to their grade for the hours at
which they are at work. No employee is entitled to be paid
for hours not worked, whether absent on approved leave without
pay or absent without permission.

4. 2. There are specific conditions under which travelling
time payments are payable to general operatives throughout the
Corporation. It is necessary that the employee reports for
work at official starting time and finishes work at official
finishing time and in both cases at the locations as required
by the Corporation. An employee is not entitled to the
travelling time payment for a particular day unless the
conditions are satisfied on the day in question. The Labour
Court in recommendation number 7670 dated 13th December 1982
stated that it was satisfied that the Corporation is correct
in assuming implicit acceptance of the conditions attaching to
travelling time payments and that the conditions should
continue to apply. The three employees concerned did not
comply with these conditions on the particular day.

3. There have been a number of other instances of early
departure without permission from work sites in the Roads
Maintenance Section - 81 cases in 1989 and 82 cases in 1988.
In each instance local management interviewed the employees
concerned and imposed a similar disciplinary penalty, which
was accepted. In any instance of repeated early unauthorised
departure from the work site, a more serious disciplinary
penalty would be imposed.

4. The efficient operation of the Roads Maintenance Section
requires that employees remain at work on the sites to which
they are assigned for the full working day. There are
approximately 52 work units on any day in the Roads
Maintenance Section. Each of these work units is assigned to
a different work location. Should it appear that the practice
of leaving the work site before the official finishing time
were to be condoned it would have a serious effect on the
efficiency and on the morale of the Section.

5. The Court is requested not to condone instances of
employees leaving their designated places of work before
official finishing time. It is also requested to sustain (A)
the penalty of 22 minutes leave without pay imposed and (B)
the principle that employees are only paid for the hours that
they are at work and are only eligible for travelling time
payments provided they comply with the conditions applicable
to such payments.

RECOMMENDATION:

5. In view of the good work-record of the workers concerned and
the fact that this was a first offence, the Court recommends that
the proposed penalty be halved.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Heffernan
20th April, 1990 ----------------
A McG/U.S. Chairman