Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90261 Case Number: LCR12960 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 3 carpenters for the replacement of tools stolen during a break-in at two Corporation Depots.
Recommendation:
6. In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
the Corporation, in accordance with long standing practices,
should replace the tools of the persons in question. Thereafter,
the range of tools appropriate to a carpenter should be agreed
between the management and union representatives which will
eliminate the discrepency between values of tools, as occured in
this case. The Court notes that both parties are in agreement
that a specific range of tools is appropriate and desirable.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90261 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12960
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 3 carpenters for the
replacement of tools stolen during a break-in at two Corporation
Depots.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Corporation requires tradespersons to have with them at
work such tools of their trade as are necessary to carry out the
work assigned to them. To facilitate the tradepersons, the
Corporation have allowed them to leave their tools on Corporation
property outside of working hours if they so wish. Furthermore
the Corporation has been prepared to make ex-gratia payments to
tradespersons in circumstances where tools were stolen while left
on Corporation property. In this case 3 carpenters submitted
claims in April, 1989, to the Corporation for the replacement of
tools stolen during break-ins. The Corporation offered to
compensate the carpenters for 50% of the value of the tools
stolen. The Corporation pointed out that in dealing with the
claim it had to take account of 'fair wear and tear' of the tools
stolen and that it would not be appropriate to replace used tools
with new ones. The Unions were also informed that the Corporation
would have to bear in mind that 2 of the carpenters claimed
similar sums whilst the third claim was almost #500 greater. It
is reasonable to expect that the carpenters would have more or
less the same range of tools, therefore, the third carpenter must
have been over stocked with tools. This offer was accepted by one
of the three carpenters concerned, however, the 2 remaining
carpenters rejected the offer on the basis that it was custom and
practice to pay the full value of the tools. Since then another
carpenter has had his tools stolen in a break-in and he too is
seeking full replacement.
3. Local negotiations failed to resolve the matter and it was
referred on 13th June, 1989, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 18th July, 1989,
was adjourned to allow the parties have discussions with a view to
formalising a tool agreement to be applied to the loss of tools
thenceforward; and that this specific case would also be examined.
During these direct discussions there was agreement in principle
to reach an accommodation in respect of future loss through
establishing what tools would only be required by the Corporation.
The Corporation stated that on the basis of agreement being
reached on procedures to be adopted in respect of future loss of
tools, it would be prepared to make an 'ex-gratia' payment of 85%
of the replacement costs of tools for the carpenters involved in
this case. The Unions' members rejected this and voted
unanimously that no discussions should take place regarding new
procedures until the outstanding claims were dealt with, as in the
past, through full replacement. A further conciliation conference
was held on 23rd January, 1990, however, agreement could not be
reached. On 30th April, 1990, the issue was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 2nd July, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions do not understand why the Corporation decided
on this occasion not to honour long standing arrangements.
There is no disagreement in respect of the tools not being
there at the time of the theft. The Unions are not seeking
the monitory value of the tools stolen, but their replacement
through the Corporation purchasing the itemised Garda
certified lists as submitted to the Corporation.
2. If the issue is not resolved the Unions will only have 2
options available. These are to either withdraw the supply of
their tool kits and let the Corporation supply the required
tools or to dispute the matter through the withdrawl of
labour. The best way to deal with this issue is if the
practice of replacement is continued until such a time as a
new procedure can be agreed.
3. The Unions are prohibited from entering discussions on new
procedures until these claims are met in full.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Corporation facilitates its tradespersons by allowing
them leave their tools on Corporation property outside of
working hours. It does not accept any responsibility or legal
liability for the loss or theft of the property of its
employees although it has over the years been prepared to
deal, on an 'ex-gratia' basis in instances where employees
claimed their tools had been stolen whilst on Corporation
property.
5. 2. The Corporation's offer of 50% of the replacement cost of
the tools claimed to have been stolen, which has been accepted
by one carpenter, is still on offer.
3. The Corporation's proposal to increase its offer to 85% of
the replacement cost of the tools claimed to have been stolen
is contingent on the Unions agreeing to new procedures in
relation to the leaving of tools on Corporation property
outside of working hours. The Corporation is at all times
willing to have further discussions with the Unions on the
matter.
4. It is equitable in assessing claims under the 'ex-gratia'
scheme that the Corporation should take account of fair wear
and tear of the tradespersons tools in determining a fair
figure.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
the Corporation, in accordance with long standing practices,
should replace the tools of the persons in question. Thereafter,
the range of tools appropriate to a carpenter should be agreed
between the management and union representatives which will
eliminate the discrepency between values of tools, as occured in
this case. The Court notes that both parties are in agreement
that a specific range of tools is appropriate and desirable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___23rd___July,____1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman