Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90531 Case Number: LCR13041 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a reduction in working hours for Lightkeepers under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It notes that both sides agree that the only feasible arrangement
by which to extend the benefit of the reduction of hours is to
translate the change into monetary terms, and it is on this aspect
that the Court's recommendation has been sought.
In the light of the submissions made, insofar as the payment of
the workers acknowledges the principle of a 40 hour work week, it
seems to the Court a logical extension of this principle to assume
that a normal year's work (i.e. 48 weeks) is carried out during
the twenty six weeks in the year during which the lightkeepers are
on duty. A reduction of one hour per week over the normal work
year is the equivalent of an increase of 2.5% increase in salary
when translated into cash terms and the Court therefore recommends
that this amount be conceded by the Commissioners.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90531 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13041
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a reduction in
working hours for Lightkeepers under the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
BACKGROUND:
2. Lightkeepers are employed on an equal time on/time off basis
and work a roster of 28 days on duty followed by 28 days free from
duty. During the course of their duty period the lightkeepers are
on call at all times and while not on watch duty they carry out
routine station maintenance. Each manned lighthouse has a
complement of 6 lightkeepers (3 alternatively on duty each 28
days). In September, 1989 the Union made a claim for a reduction
in the working week for lightkeepers in accordance with the terms
of the P.N.R.. Both parties agreed that, due to the nature of
lightkeepers' duties, a reduction in actual working hours is not
feasible and that the only suitable arrangement is an adjustment
in pay. The Commissioners claim that the purpose of the
"Framework Agreement on Hours of Work," which was provided for
under the P.N.R., was to reduce by one hour the working time of
employees whose normal working week is at or above 40 hours. As
lightkeepers work 26 weeks in each year the Commissioners
therefore offered to make a pay adjustment in respect of 26 hours
i.e. one hour in respect of each working week. The Union rejected
this offer and claimed a 2.56% pay increase applied to basic rates
over a 52 week year. No agreement was reached at local level and
the matter was referred on 23rd May, 1990 to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 17th August, 1990 at which no agreement was reached and the
matter was referred on 29th August, 1990 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 28th September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the nature of their work lightkeepers operate a 28
day on/off roster. The 28 days spent on duty generates an
entitlement to the 28 days off duty. Over the year the 26
weeks spent on duty equates roughly to the standard working
year of workers in what is considered normal industry.
Lightkeepers are entitled to an increase of 2.56% basic rates
based on a 52 week year and would be shortchanged if they only
received compensation for the 26 weeks actually spent on duty.
2. Some companies have implemented the one hour reduction
under the P.N.R. by conceding extra annual leave in respect of
the number of weeks worked annually. The Commissioners' claim
that the benefit of the one hour reduction only applies to
weeks worked might hold up if the Union were claiming time off
or annual holidays. However lightkeepers do not receive
annual holidays and the commissioners' claim cannot be
sustained due to the fact that it completely disregards the
way in which time off periods are generated.
3. Lightkeepers are paid for 52 weeks of the year and any pay
arrangement should be based on this period. The steady
decrease in manned stations culminating in a final
disappearance by 1997 will mean that any increased costs will
vanish with the jobs.
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The fundamental purpose of the Framework Agreement on
Working Hours was to reduce by one hour the working time of
employees whose standard working week was 40 hours or more.
Therefore, in the case of Lightkeepers who work 26 weeks in
each year it follows that the total number of hours to be
addressed is 26 i.e. one hour in respect of each working week.
2. The Lightkeepers' contention that an adjustment in pay for
on-duty periods in lieu of non-reduction of the working week
must be reflected in pay for off duty periods, is not
sustainable. Were it possible to actually reduce the number
of hours worked in a week, this reduction would apply to only
26 weeks of the year. There would be no question of adjusting
pay for off duty periods in such circumstances.
3. Lightkeepers are paid a consolidated rate of pay which was
determined by the Labour Court and which compensates them in
full for the duties, hours worked and unsocial aspects of the
job (L.C.R. 6987 of 1st June, 1982). As the consolidated rate
does not contain an identifiable overtime element, the only
option available is to increase their annual salary by the
value of 26 hours' pay - i.e. one hour's pay for each week
worked.
4. The Commissioners' offer will result in an increase of
1.28% in Lightkeepers' wage costs and any further improvement
on the offer could not be justified. Any increase in salary
would have an effect on pension costs. Concession of the
Union's claim would have repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It notes that both sides agree that the only feasible arrangement
by which to extend the benefit of the reduction of hours is to
translate the change into monetary terms, and it is on this aspect
that the Court's recommendation has been sought.
In the light of the submissions made, insofar as the payment of
the workers acknowledges the principle of a 40 hour work week, it
seems to the Court a logical extension of this principle to assume
that a normal year's work (i.e. 48 weeks) is carried out during
the twenty six weeks in the year during which the lightkeepers are
on duty. A reduction of one hour per week over the normal work
year is the equivalent of an increase of 2.5% increase in salary
when translated into cash terms and the Court therefore recommends
that this amount be conceded by the Commissioners.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
12th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.