Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91244 Case Number: LCR13391 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
A dispute concerning the rent of a Caretakers house.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
considered that the formula arrived at following the issue of
LCR12399 i.e. the payment of a weekly rent as determined under the
Council's Differential Rent scheme reduced by 15% was reasonable
and should be applied in this case.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91244 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13391
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the rent of a Caretakers house.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Council held a competition for the vacancy as
caretaker at a water treatment works. The position was filled and
the caretaker took up duty on 10th September, 1990. It was a
condition of employment that the caretaker take up residence in a
house provided by the Council. A dispute arose as to the rent to
be paid by the caretaker for his tenancy of the house.
2. On advertising the vacancy, the Council stated as part of its
conditions:-
"The weekly rent of the Caretakers House will be calculated
in accordance with the terms of the Council's Differential
Rent Scheme in operation and the weekly rent shall be
subject to review in accordance with the terms of the
scheme".
The weekly rent calculated in accordance with the above is #23 per
week. The Union on behalf of the caretaker claimed that the rent
should be calculated in a similar manner to the rent of the
previous caretakers. (#10.59 and #13.00 per week respectively).
3. No resolution was possible locally and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference were held on 17th April, 1991. A formal letting
agreement was signed by the caretaker on 21st May, 1991 on the
Union's understanding that the benefits of any concession on this
claim would be passed onto the worker. No agreement was reached
at conciliation and the claim was referred to a Labour Court
investigation on 8th May, 1991. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 13th August, 1991 in Kilkenny (earliest date suitable to
both parties).
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The caretaker is the third person to take up a tenancy at
this site. The 2 previous tenants had negotiated agreements
with the Council for rents of #10.59 and #13.00 per week
respectively. The rent for a house at another water treatment
works was calculated in 1984 in a similar manner to the
agreement between the two previous tenants of the house
involved in this claim. It has increased only slightly since
1984.
2. Despite these agreements, the Council are seeking to
charge the caretaker a rent of #23.00 per week. The Council
refers to the caretaker's conditions of employment. The Union
sees no connection as these conditions are not specific in
pointing out the rent to be charged for the house (details
supplied). The proposed rent of #23 takes no account of the
fact that the caretaker is forced to take up residence as a
condition of employment or the fact that the house cannot be
purchased by the tenant.
COUNCIL ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The caretaker took up duty on 10th September, 1990 and
signed a formal letting agreement on 21st May, 1991. The rent
charged of #23 per week is in accordance with the terms of the
Council's differential rent scheme and the rent is to be
reviewed in accordance with the terms of the scheme. The rent
for the last caretaker was negotiated with the Union involved
following the issue of Labour Court Recommendation No. 12399;-
"Having considered the submissions made by the parties,
the Court recommends that further discussions should
take place between them, aimed at exploring in detail,
the various avenues open for reaching an amicable
settlement in this case. Should the parties so wish
the Court will make the services of an Industrial
Relations Officer available to assist them in their
discussions.
The rent was agreed at 15% less than the Council's
differential rent scheme. This was to compensate the worker
for forgoing the right to purchase.
2. As a result of the difficulties encountered in regard to
the tenancy of the last caretaker, the Council took the
precaution, when advertising the competition for the post on
this occasion of setting out clearly the terms and conditions
of employment, including the rent. The caretaker knew the
rent which would be payable when he applied for the job.
There is no agreement with any Union on rents payable by
caretakers. As a result of not setting out the conditions
clearly beforehand, for the 2 previous caretakers, the rent
had to be negotiated. There is no such problem resulting from
the most recent competition.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
considered that the formula arrived at following the issue of
LCR12399 i.e. the payment of a weekly rent as determined under the
Council's Differential Rent scheme reduced by 15% was reasonable
and should be applied in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th August, 1991 -----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman