Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90364 Case Number: LCR12886 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE'S TRADE UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions for payment of a stand-by allowance to two general operatives at Ballymun Heating Plant.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made is of the
opinion that the arrangements in the boilerhouse are not such as
to warrant the payment of a standby allowance to the workers
making the claim. However the Court does consider that where the
workers are called upon to fill in on the shift attendant's roster
they should carry the higher rate and shift allowance for a
minimum period of one week. The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90364 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12886
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE'S TRADE UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for payment of a stand-by allowance to two
general operatives at Ballymun Heating Plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. Ballymun Boiler House is staffed on the basis of a 24 hours
three shift roster (i.e. 6 a.m. - 2 p.m., 2 p.m. - 10 p.m., 10
p.m. - 6 p.m.). Each shift is staffed by two shift attendants who
are paid the group 10 differential plus a shift premium. In the
event that a shift attendant is absent one of the two general
operatives here concerned deployed to the heating section in
Ballymun substitutes for the shift attendant. The general
operatives who are normally paid the group 2 differential rate are
paid the higher shift attendant group 10 rate and the shift
premium for this period. The Unions claim that this is
insufficient compensation for the inconvenience of being available
for shift work at short notice and that the two workers concerned
should receive a stand-by allowance. The Corporation see no merit
in the claim and have rejected it. No agreement was reached at
local level and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 13th February, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on 18th June, 1990 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 27th June,
1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which was held on 5th
October, 1990 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is for a stand-by allowance for the workers
concerned. It is not for an on-call allowance. In the
on-call situation workers can be called upon for work at any
time. In the stand-by situation the workers can be told
during the course of their normal working hours that they are
required to do shift work.
2. There is social inconvenience involved in being on
"stand-by." It is difficult to make arrangements outside of
work, if the individual is aware that he may be required to
work a shift at short notice. This is compounded by the fact
that none of the shifts correspond to normal working hours, so
it is not a question of changing from one job to another,
within the same time span.
3. There is a precedent in the Corporation for the payment of
an allowance for a similar type of situation. This is in the
Sewers Department Main Pumping Station, where a fitter is on
"stand-by" allowance. There is no reason why the workers
concerned should be treated less favourably.
4. In 1980, discussions were held with the Corporation
regarding the pay arrangements for the general operatives when
on shift and agreement was reached. This agreement did not
include being on "stand-by," which the Unions regard as an
outstanding issue. It was raised with the Corporation on 6th
March, 1989 and discussed at a meeting on 16th November, 1989,
when our claim was rejected.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation does not operate a "stand-by" allowance as
such. It does operate an on-call allowance. It is the
established custom and practice for the vast majority of
Corporation services that an on-call allowance is only payable
to an employee who is required to attend outside of normal
working hours without prior notice on not less than an average
of two occasions per week throughout the year.
2. On receipt of the claim the Corporation examined the
particular circumstances applicable to these two employees.
In the twelve month period from October, 1988 to September,
1989 the total number of occasions on which a substitute was
required in the Heating Section was thirty. Ten of these
occasions were in respect of annual leave for which there
would have been adequate prior notice, four were in respect of
sick leave and sixteen were in respect of periods on which the
regular plant attendants were recorded as being absent. The
total number of occasions (20) for which prior notice could
not be given to either of the two general operatives that one
or other of them was required to substitute is very far short
of the minimum number of occasions required to qualify for an
on-call allowance. There is no sustainable case for the
payment of an on-call allowance to the workers concerned.
2. In 1981 the Corporation responded to all the claims
regarding the pay arrangements for the general operatives and
they were settled in full. It is part of their job that they
be available for work as required.
3. In the sewers, main drainage section treatment works and
main lift pumping station the general operatives who
substitute for the shift attendants do not receive an on-call
allowance. There is a special historical arrangement for
fitters in the major engineering works whose work is vital to
the operation of the plant.
4. The Corporation in its direct discussions made an offer to
the Unions that it was prepared to hold a competition for
additional substitute shift attendants in the heating section
as a result of which arrangements could be made that any
individual substitute would be called upon less often to
substitute. This offer was not accepted by the Unions or the
workers. This proposal is still on offer.
5. The Corporation is satisfied that were this claim to be
conceded there would be repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made is of the
opinion that the arrangements in the boilerhouse are not such as
to warrant the payment of a standby allowance to the workers
making the claim. However the Court does consider that where the
workers are called upon to fill in on the shift attendant's roster
they should carry the higher rate and shift allowance for a
minimum period of one week. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
18th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.