Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90377 Case Number: LCR13020 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of three workers concerning the deduction of 5.5. hours pay.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
can not find grounds to uphold the Unions' claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90377 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13020
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of three workers concerning the
deduction of 5.5. hours pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three workers concerned work in the Roads Maintenance
Department of the Corporation. The workers concerned reported for
duty at 8.00 a.m. on Friday 27th October, 1989, for the purpose of
reinstating a Dublin Gas Company opening in Cuffe Street, for
which the Corporation was the contractor. As it was raining
heavily, the senior supervisor on site agreed that they could
shelter in the hut. At approximately 10.20 a.m. the senior
supervisor, who had himself been working in the rain, requested
one of the workers to use the concrete saw to trim the joints of a
hole in the road to prepare it for surfacing with asphalt which
was due to be delivered by SIAC at 11.00 a.m. The worker refused
on the grounds that the weather conditions were too severe. The
worker informed the senior supervisor that he would carry out the
instruction when the rain eased off. The other two workers were
also requested to commence work, however both took the same
position. The senior supervisor requested the three workers to
report back to the depot. On arrival at the depot the Inspector
requested the workers to return to the site and finish the work
assigned to them. The workers refused the request on the same
grounds as before. The Inspector then sent the workers home for
the rest of the day and 5.5 hours pay was deducted from each of
the workers concerned (i.e. 11.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.). The Unions
claimed that no money should have been deducted from the workers'
wages as it was standard practice not to work during very bad
weather unless it was an emergency. The Corporation rejected the
Unions' claim. On 1st May, 1990, the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 28th June, 1990, and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 3rd July, 1990, for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 5th September, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the day in question the senior supervisor decided
that the workers should take shelter in the hut rather than
commence work. Due to the torrential rain that day road gangs
throughout the Roads Maintenance Department did not work. Nor
did contractors also employed on the Cuffe Street site.
2. It is established custom and practice that crews do not
work in extremely bad weather conditions unless it is an
emergency. The work in Cuffe Street was not of an emergency
nature. The workers did agree to commence work as soon as the
rain eased. They did not refuse to work.
3. It was unreasonable for the Corporation to ask the
workers concerned to operate concrete cutting equipment during
such poor weather . It must be borne in mind that there
was also a safety element to be considered.
4. Given the circumstances of this case, custom and
practice during bad weather and the amount of money involved
(approximately #20 per worker), the Unions believe the
Corporation is acting unfairly and that the workers concerned
should receive full pay for the day in question.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In accordance with the terms of the 1975 Productivity
Agreement, the most senior supervisor on site determines
whether or not work takes place. On the day in question the
senior supervisor decided that work was to be carried out and
his instructions should have been obeyed.
2. The senior supervisor was most reasonable with the
workers concerned. He worked in the rain from 8.35 a.m. till
10.00 a.m. and it was only after that, that he asked the
workers to leave the hut to operate the saw. He was entitled
to have instructed the workers to work from 8.35 a.m. onwards.
3. It was essential that the repairs to Cuffe Street be
completed that day in view of the fact that it was along the
route of the Dublin City Marathon which was due to take place
on the following Monday.
4 There was no danger in using the concrete saw in the
rain. Indeed in normal usage water is poured on the blade to
keep it cool and to help keep the dust down.
5. The Corporation was acting as contractor on the site and
as a result was not in a position to recoup the cost of time
not actually worked on the job, nor has the Corporation any
financial resources to meet such costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
can not find grounds to uphold the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
-----------------
14th September, 1990
B.O'N./U.S. Chairman