Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90230 Case Number: LCR13009 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning proposed re-organisation of services.
Recommendation:
12. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties,
oral and written, finds as follows:
(a) payment for additional hours
In the light of the present situation regarding the Social
Employment Schemes and the Board's suggestions it is the view of
the Court that when the situation has been clarified and, in
particular, if agreement is reached to proceed with SES projects,
all issues between the parties, including the above, should be the
subject of discussion between them with a view to a mutually
acceptable agreement being reached. In the event that agreement
cannot be reached, the Court would be prepared to assist to find a
resolution to any outstanding issues.
(b) Transport for staff
The Court does not find grounds for concession of the Union's
claim and accordingly rejects it.
(c) Eel fishing
The Court finds that it is not unreasonable for staff to expect to
benefit from the introduction of eel fishing. Noting the Board's
statement to the Court that "it would have no objection to talk
about the issue if it was making money", the Court takes the view
that the operation should be introduced as proposed by the Board.
The parties should review the issue after a period of six months,
this review to take account of the viability of the operation and
the Union's claim. The parties in discussion should seek to reach
an acceptable agreement on which the eel fishing can be based for
the future.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90230 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13009
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESTERN REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning proposed re-organisation of services.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. On the 10th January, 1990, the Board wrote to the Union
advising that it was no longer possible to provide full-time
employment for its workers on the type of brown trout development
work that they heretofore had been engaged in. This was due to
financial constraints, changing circumstances in inland fisheries
and the discontinuation of certain activities including gill
netting on lakes. In order to avoid compulsory redundancies, the
Board proposed the following re-allocation of
duties/re-organisation of services:-
1. Generate alternative funds from other sources and in
particular under the current FAS programme for development
work on fisheries throughout the region. Some existing staff
members to be assigned as foremen of approved FAS projects.
2. Allocate staff to the research programme on sea trout which
is being funded separately by the Department of the Marine
and private sources. Duties in this regard would primarily
be concerned with test netting in the vicinity of sea cages.
3. Assign two staff members, currently based on Upper Corrib, to
Cong Hatchery.
4. General survey and development work on salmon, sea trout
fisheries and brown trout fisheries, and on the development
of sea angling where resources permit.
5. Provision of coarse angling facilities similar to those
already developed at the Moycullen Lakes in different
locations in the region where resources permit.
6. Development of commercial opportunities in eel fishing and
other species.
7. Promotion and development of angling generally.
8. Assign staff members where appropriate to the Galway, Erriff
and other fisheries owned by the Board or the Central
Fisheries Board.
9. In general, provide gainful employment opportunities in
connection with the above matters and others throughout the
region.
Following local discussions agreement was reached on some points
with the outstanding areas of disagreement being referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference on the 15th March further agreement was reached, except
for points 1, 3 and 6 of the Board's letter. On the 2nd May,
these outstanding matters were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
19th July, 1990.
Claim (a) - Other sources of funding, specifically FAS programmes.
BACKGROUND:
3. The Board proposes to assign some of the claimants to FAS
Social Employment Schemes (SES). They will be transported to the
site, given time off in lieu of overtime and paid an eating on
site allowance. The Union is claiming that the claimants should
be paid for overtime rather than get time off in lieu and should
also be paid subsistence. This has been rejected by the Board.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has withdrawn all co-operation with the FAS
Social Employment Scheme (on a national level) but the scheme
could go ahead provided that the following terms were
conceded:
- transport to be provided to and from work,
- week on, week off working,
- on week off, staff spend time organising for week on,
- staff to be paid eating on site allowance,
- staff to be allocated and paid as foreman,
- additional hours over and above the normal working week be
compensated on an overtime basis as is allowed for by the
staff scheme.
4. 2. Payment of overtime is a fundamental principle and is
accepted by all other regional fisheries boards.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Board only seeks funding from FAS for work which it
was not possible to undertake previously, even in good
financial times and there is no question of using these
programmes to substitute for work previously carried out by
the claimants.
2. The Union's demands of overtime payments and subsistence
would add considerable expense to the programme, would negate
the original idea and make it uneconomic. In fact, the
additional cost including transport would probably be
equivalent to a week's wages for a foreman.
3. It is not really practical to send staff long distances to
supervise schemes in areas where they have never worked
before. It would be preferable to promote similar schemes in
the general area of the Corrib Catchment where they have
always worked, where transport would not be a problem and
where demands for overtime and subsistence which make schemes
uneconomic would not arise. The Board is willing to explore
this option with the Union.
Claim (b) - Transport for staff being assigned to Cong Hatchery.
BACKGROUND:
6. The Union is seeking the retention of the transport enjoyed by
the two claimants prior to their move to Cong. The Board has
rejected this on the grounds that where transport is necessary to
do the job it is provided but it is not provided to enable people
report from home to their employment base.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Board has argued that transport is not available for
getting to work. However, Clause 8.2 of the staff scheme
states:
"It is accepted in principle that the designated base or
work area of a staff member will be such as may be
designated from time to time by the Chief
Officer/Regional Manager of each Board.
Following consultation, staff will transfer and work at
any base and work area designated by the Chief
Officer/Regional Manager.
Proposals for transfer may be initiated by individual
staff members as well as by Management.
A staff member serving on the 28th October, 1980 who was
appointed to a permanent post at a specific base, will
not be located outside such a base if the Chief
Officer/Regional Manager is satisfied that he/she would
suffer hardship as a result of such location. However,
the work area may be re-organised and extended as
required.
On entry to the service, staff will be subject to
re-assignment wherever the needs of the Fisheries Board
dictate before more permanent arrangements are made."
This clause must be interpreted reasonably and because of the
hardship involved, the claimants should continue to be
provided with transport.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The staff scheme provides that new bases and work areas
may be determined at any time by the Chief Officer of a Board
following consultation with staff/union. It is a binding
contract on both parties and the Union position is an
infringement on this contract.
2. There is no question of hardship in the cases concerned.
The two claimants live only a few miles from Cong, they do not
have to change residence and have the necessary personal
transport available to them to get to and from work.
Furthermore, it is normal and widely accepted that workers in
fisheries services and other employments have to travel to and
from work at their own expense.
3. The claimants have refused to honour the terms of the
Staff Scheme (Grievance procedure, Section 9.3) and have
remained at home without permission when Board transport was
not available.
Claim (c) - development of commercial opportunities in eel fishing
and other species.
BACKGROUND:
9. The Board proposes to develop for commercial purposes eel
fishing and other species. The Union is seeking extra payment for
this. The Board has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The claimants should be compensated for taking on eel
fishing duties especially as they are employed as general
operatives and not fishermen.
2. A precedence exists for concession of this claim. In the
past when the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board put trawlers
on Lough Sheelin to trawl for Pike and Perch it paid the
workers 10% of the catch.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The proposed work would involve the netting of eels which
is not substantially different to netting for pike and perch
(a normal work-practice) and even less onerous. At present
the Board has no idea what other species could be looked at.
2. The Staff Scheme makes no provision for any bonus
payments.
3. Eel stocks on the Corrib are only a fraction of what they
could be. The Board would only undertake this work in the
interests of increasing stocks and carrying out a developing
programme which of its nature would be long-term. This work
would not generate any substantial additional revenue for the
Board and any eels sold would at best compensate for the
revenue lost by the discontinuation of pike and perch control
through the sale of the catch. The Board is prepared to look
at the question of bonus in the future, if the venture is
generating revenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties,
oral and written, finds as follows:
(a) payment for additional hours
In the light of the present situation regarding the Social
Employment Schemes and the Board's suggestions it is the view of
the Court that when the situation has been clarified and, in
particular, if agreement is reached to proceed with SES projects,
all issues between the parties, including the above, should be the
subject of discussion between them with a view to a mutually
acceptable agreement being reached. In the event that agreement
cannot be reached, the Court would be prepared to assist to find a
resolution to any outstanding issues.
(b) Transport for staff
The Court does not find grounds for concession of the Union's
claim and accordingly rejects it.
(c) Eel fishing
The Court finds that it is not unreasonable for staff to expect to
benefit from the introduction of eel fishing. Noting the Board's
statement to the Court that "it would have no objection to talk
about the issue if it was making money", the Court takes the view
that the operation should be introduced as proposed by the Board.
The parties should review the issue after a period of six months,
this review to take account of the viability of the operation and
the Union's claim. The parties in discussion should seek to reach
an acceptable agreement on which the eel fishing can be based for
the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___________________
7th September, 1990.
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.