Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9050 Case Number: LCR12821 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FOTA WILDLIFE PARK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of four workers for an increase in basic pay and a revision of the duty rosters.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having fully considered all of the issues raised by
the parties in their submissions finds as follows:-
1. Claim for increase in basic pay
The Court takes the view that there is merit in the claim of
the staff concerned. To concede the claim at this time would
be contrary to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. Accordingly the Court does not recommend its
concession at this time. The Court considers however that at
the first available opportunity the parties should discuss the
matter and seek an arrangement in respect of pay which will
meet the needs of the staff and be acceptable to the Company.
2. Revised Rosters
It is the view of the Court that the claim for a reduction in
the working week by an additional day if conceded would be in
breach of the Programme for National Recovery. Consequently
the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court however considers the parties should have further
discussions with a view to reaching agreement on rosters that
would be socially more acceptable. The parties in the context
of these discussions should take account of the reduction in
hours of work provided for under the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9050 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12821
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FOTA WILDLIFE PARK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of four workers for an increase
in basic pay and a revision of the duty rosters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The rates of pay and conditions of employment of the workers
were established by an agreement of 9th October, 1983 and are
based on the Agricultural Workers Joint Labour Committee (J.L.C.)
rates, plus a differential. Two of the workers are classified as
general workers and receive the basic rate plus a differential of
21% (#143.07 p.w.), one is an assistant chargehand and receives a
differential of 29% (#152.52 p.w.) and the fourth is a chargehand
and receives a differential of 37% (#161.98 p.w.). The overtime
rates applicable are T+1/3 for weekdays and T+2/3 for Sundays.
The duty rosters in operation provide for eleven days on and three
days off. Hours over forty a week are paid at the appropriate
overtime rate. In a six week cycle a worker is on thirty three
days, of which three are Sundays.
3. In October, 1989 the Union made a claim for an increase in
wages and for a review of the roster system. No agreement could
be reached at local level and on 26th October, 1989 the matters
were referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 10th November, 1989. The
Union's position is that the workers' rates of pay are not
appropriate for the work involved and that they should be paid in
line with wildlife wardens (park rangers), who they claim are the
nearest comparison. (The basic rate of pay of these workers is
#187.97 per week with appropriate overtime rates, etc). The
Company's position is that the Union's claim is in breach of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and that such a
comparison is invalid. The issue of the duty rosters was referred
back for further local level discussions, however no progress was
made and a further conciliation conference was held on 24th
November, 1989. The Union's position is that the roster of eleven
days on and three days off is unfair and the workers should
receive an extra day off to break up the eleven days on. The
Company's position is that it is willing to change the rosters but
that the Union's claim would mean a substantial reduction in the
working week. In January, 1990 it was agreed that both matters
should be referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 21st
February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was still in its infancy stage when
negotiations were held on wages and conditions. There were
obvious difficulties in establishing rates that were in line
with the average industrial wages in the Cork area at that
time. It was agreed that the Agricultural Workers J.L.C.
rates of pay would be used as a basis for establishing a basic
rate, but even then it was recognised that the J.L.C. rates
were inappropriate and a scale adjustment plus a differential
for each worker was agreed. Since then the Company has
expanded and the number of animals, etc has increased and the
workload and responsibilities of the workers has trebled.
2. There is absolutely no comparison between the duties of
these workers and agricultural workers. The workers deal with
wild animals who are unpredictable and at times quite
dangerous. Each of the species must have specialised care and
attention particularly during breeding and rearing. In
addition, the workers are responsible for holding areas
outside of the Park, the quarantine areas for animals coming
in from abroad, for the care and maintenance of the Park all
year round and in dealing with members of the public. The
wages of the workers are completely out of line with workers
doing work of a comparable nature, or at least those who deal
with wild animals, i.e. wildlife wardens (park rangers).
3. The roster system of eleven days on and three days off
would not be tolerated in any other industry or employment.
Manning levels have been cut to the bone and management is
inflexible. On weekends (Saturday, Sunday, Monday), there are
only two workers on duty and yet the workload is the same as
during the week and this must be completed before six p.m.
The claim to extend days off to four is a minimal one.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has at all times indicated its willingness to
implement the terms of the P.N.R. for its workers and in fact
has already implemented phase one. The Union's claim is a
blatant breach of the terms of that programme. The comparison
made by the Union to wildlife wardens is totally invalid.
Wardens are paid from central funds by the Office of Public
Works, there is no such funding available to the Company.
Even if the P.N.R. did not exist the Company would be unable
to concede any part of the Union's claim. The Company is
totally dependent on revenue generated from visitors together
with nominal fixed but not guaranteed subvention from local
authority funds. The Company has been operating at a loss for
some time and the preliminary accounts show that the losses
sustained in 1989 were double the losses of 1988. In the
circumstances, the Company is to be commended for its
willingness to implement the terms of the P.N.R.
2. The Company has been willing to change the duty rosters so
as to eliminate the necessity for the workers to work eleven
consecutive days. However, this could not be done without
breaking up the three consecutive days off which the rosters
permitted and which the workers wished to retain. To maintain
these three consecutive days off and at the same time to break
up the continuous eleven days worked would have meant a
substantial reduction in the average working week. This would
be totally contrary to the terms of the P.N.R., including the
framework agreement on working hours, as it would have the
effect of reducing the two weeks working hours paid for at
flat rate from eighty to seventy two or an average working
week of thirty six hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having fully considered all of the issues raised by
the parties in their submissions finds as follows:-
1. Claim for increase in basic pay
The Court takes the view that there is merit in the claim of
the staff concerned. To concede the claim at this time would
be contrary to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. Accordingly the Court does not recommend its
concession at this time. The Court considers however that at
the first available opportunity the parties should discuss the
matter and seek an arrangement in respect of pay which will
meet the needs of the staff and be acceptable to the Company.
2. Revised Rosters
It is the view of the Court that the claim for a reduction in
the working week by an additional day if conceded would be in
breach of the Programme for National Recovery. Consequently
the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court however considers the parties should have further
discussions with a view to reaching agreement on rosters that
would be socially more acceptable. The parties in the context
of these discussions should take account of the reduction in
hours of work provided for under the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
2nd May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.