Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90240 Case Number: LCR12934 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORRIGAN AND SONS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties do
not find grounds for precluding the management from carrying out
the work concerned in this dispute. The Court recognises,
however, that the exclusion of the normal full-time employees from
such work is a source of serious discontent. Accordingly the
Court recommends the parties discuss arrangements for the carrying
out of this work which will lead to an equitable distribution of
the work between management and employees, and agreement on the
rates to apply.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90240 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12934
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORRIGAN AND SONS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the undertaking business. The
claim concerns two workers who have been employed by the Company
as drivers since 1985 and 1987 respectively. They perform a
number of functions which include removals to various churches and
funerals from churches to graveyards. The Company has a contract
with the Jewish community whereby it undertakes all Jewish
funerals in the greater Dublin area. These funerals occasionally
take place on Sundays and involve one journey with one driver and
are often at very short notice. They are done by either the owner
of the Company or his son. The Union is claiming that the workers
concerned should do this work and submitted a claim for loss of
earnings on the grounds that Management performed undertaking
duties from May, 1989 to April, 1990 (details supplied to the
Court). The Company rejected the claim. Local discussions failed
to resolve the issue which was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 3rd January, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 20th April, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 16th May, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 22nd
June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Members of Management have performed driving duties at
funerals on Sundays between May, 1989 and April, 1990. The
Union understands that since that date they have continued to
do Jewish funerals at weekends. As a result the earning
potential of the workers concerned has been adversely
affected. The Union wrote to the Company in December, 1989
claiming that the workers concerned should be called upon when
burials take place on Sundays. Management responded stating
that they had always been involved in funerals on Sundays.
This is not the case, the workers concerned have in the past
been called out to assist at these burials.
2. The Union has endeavoured to try and assist the Company in
its various operations and has put forward suggestions to
Management as to how the issue of allocating week-end work
could be resolved. The Company has disregarded these
suggestions. The Company is in breach of the Agreement for
the general undertaking trade signed between the Union and the
Employer which stipulates that there must be a minimum of
three drivers in every yard. The Company has also disregarded
the clause of the Agreement which stipulates all yards will
operate a pension scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a small family owned business. Two family
members are closely involved on a hands on basis in every
aspect of the business. They have performed all work outside
of normal working hours which only requires one person and
consequently have a low labour input. The basic rate of pay
of the workers concerned is #176.38. There are in addition a
variety of job rates depending on the actual duties performed
at a funeral. Standy for a Saturday afternoon to both drivers
is #17.60 p.w. irrespective of whether they are called in.
2. The cost of employing a driver outside normal hours,
especially on Sunday, is prohibitive. In any event it is
quite feasible for Management to perform work requiring only
one person. At present there is on average less than one call
per month where only one person is required and this
represents a very small proportion of the total work carried
out by the Company. There is no requirement at present to
call in drivers to perform this work. It is clear from the
earnings of the two drivers over the past three tax years
(details supplied to the Court) that the drivers concerned
have suffered no loss of earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties do
not find grounds for precluding the management from carrying out
the work concerned in this dispute. The Court recognises,
however, that the exclusion of the normal full-time employees from
such work is a source of serious discontent. Accordingly the
Court recommends the parties discuss arrangements for the carrying
out of this work which will lead to an equitable distribution of
the work between management and employees, and agreement on the
rates to apply.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
13th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.