Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91262 Case Number: LCR13332 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: CALOR GAS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning proposed changes in operating conditions and procedures for 10 clerical staff at Dublin Filling Station.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the matters at issue.
Having noted the overall terms agreed and accepted by the majority
of the staff the Court makes specific recommendations as follows.
Half Hour Tea Break
Whilst noting the principle to which the Company wishes to adhere,
in respect of this issue insisting on the break being taken does
not appear to be a benefit to anybody. The Court therefore
recommends that the Union's claim be conceded in this case.
Early Starts
The decision as to when it is appropriate for work to be done must
in the final analysis rest with Management. The Court therefore
does not recommend that they be obliged to offer work at any
particular times which does not strictly relate to the
requirements of the task in hand.
Weekend Overtime
On the basis of the submissions made it appears to the Court that
this overtime in some respects is akin to jobs which in other
industries are done on a 'call out' basis. Bearing in mind the
location of the D.F.S. and the nature of these tasks the Court
recommends that the workers be given the choice of dealing with
the work on either an overtime or a call out basis.
If the workers concerned choose to go on call out, in accordance
with the usual industrial practice, they work only until the task
is completed and the worker paid a guaranteed minimum of 3 hours
at the appropriate overtime rate.
If on the other hand they are seeking to have the task
incorporated into overtime the Court is of the opinion that the
Company is entitled to insist on appropriate work being done for
the minimum five hours guaranteed and the Court so recommends.
Grading and Job Descriptions
The Court does not consider that any feature of the work in the
D.F.S. warrants any major distinctions being made between the
staff here concerned and other clerical employees of the Company.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the same grading
structure with the same obligations to do the work appropriate to
that grade generally apply to all those involved in this case.
Other Issues Outstanding
The Court is of the opinion that these should be further discussed
directly by the parties.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91262 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13332
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CALOR GAS
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning proposed changes in operating conditions
and procedures for 10 clerical staff at Dublin Filling Station.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Due to loss of business the Company undertook a cost
reduction programme in 1990. This involved revised working
arrangements and job reductions which were negotiated
following the referral on 21st May, 1990 of the matter to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. The settlement
agreed was detailed by the Industrial Relations Officer
(I.R.O.) in a letter dated 8th August, 1990 and included the
following paragraph:-
"(E) Both sides recognise that a number of special
arrangements exist in the Filling Plant. Upon
acceptance of this package of proposals the Company
will commence discussions with a view to resolving
these special arrangements.
Should no agreement be reached all matters still
unresolved will be the subject of a full hearing and
all sides agree in advance to be bound by the
findings of the Labour Court. In order to assist
these discussions a further conciliation conference
will be held on 27th August, 1990 and failing
agreement a full hearing will be held as soon as may
be arranged thereafter."
The "special arrangements" referred to in paragraph E which are
unique to the Dublin Filling Station (D.F.S.) number 34 items.
Following acceptance by overall ballot vote of the proposals dated
8th August, 1990 the special arrangements were the subject of
further conciliation conferences on 11th December, 1990 and 10th
January, 1991. Settlement proposals which emanated from the
negotiations were set out by the I.R.O. in a letter dated 11th
January, 1991 as follows:-
1. A lump sum payment of #3,000 net will be paid to each
employee in D.F.S. upon acceptance of these proposals.
2. All overtime must be clocked with the exception of
call-out.
3. Consequent on the elimination of D. Becton's post a lump
sum of #5,380 net will be divided between 10 employees in
D.F.S.
4. The letter of 8th August, 1990 and the Company's document
attached is implemented in full upon acceptance of these
proposals.
The Company has undertaken to provide the Union with copies of
the final Company document by Monday next.
Should these proposals be rejected by either side they are
withdrawn and the matter will be referred to the Labour Court
for binding arbitration in accordance with clause (E) of the
settlement terms in my letter of 8th August, 1990.
These proposals were rejected by the 10 clerical employees in the
D.F.S. In subsequent negotiations the 34 special arrangements
were reduced to 10 items on which agreement could not be reached.
A further conciliation conference was held on 8th May, 1991. The
Company claimed that the proposals of 8th August, 1990 which had
been implemented for head office staff should be implemented at
the D.F.S. unless the Union agreed to refer the outstanding
matters to the Labour Court for a binding recommendation as
provided for in clause (E). The Union rejected the Company claim.
Following consultation with the Labour Relations Commission the
Court investigated the dispute under Section 26(5) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
2. The Court investigated the dispute on 20th May, 1991. At that
stage the 10 items in dispute had been reduced to 6 items as
follows:-
(a) Half Hour Tea Break
The Company claims that staff who work at least 2 hours
overtime in the evenings must avail of their paid half
hour tea break while clocked in. Overtime will only be
paid for those hours recorded on the clock. The Union
claims staff should be able to work through without
taking a tea break and claim the half hour extra as
overtime.
(b) Early Starts
An early start is sometimes required in the bulk
delivery area and in the cylinder dispatch area. The
Company claims that the designation of hours to be
worked on overtime rests with management. The Union
claims that the existing early start arrangement should
remain.
(c) Week-end Overtime
The Company is prepared to provide up to 5 hours
overtime when week-end working is required subject to
all hours being worked and clocked for overtime. The
Union claims that the practice of the "task and go" for
the 4 delivery office staff concerned should continue.
(d) Job Descriptions
The Union claims that the Company should provide an
up-dated job specification for all staff. The Company
is not prepared to issue specific job specifications but
is prepared to issue common job descriptions for the
clerical grades.
(e) Switchboard Operator
The Union claims that the Company proposes to transfer
the switchboard operator at D.F.S. to head office. This
is not acceptable to the Union while the switchboard is
operated at D.F.S. The Company claims that there is a
need to reduce manning levels at D.F.S. but this is not
necessarily dependent on the transfer of the switch
board operator.
(f) Overtime Guarantee Formula
The proposals of 8th August, 1990 included clause (c)
which provided that earnings will be maintained as a
constant at 55% of overtime earned in the tax year ended
5th April, 1990. The Company claims this formula should
apply at D.F.S. and all overtime must be worked. The
Union claims that the calculation should be based on the
P60 for the year ended 5th April, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposals dated 8th August, 1990 recognised the
special arrangements at D.F.S. which had evolved over the
years. The parties entered protracted negotiations and the
financial settlement offer made by the Company was generally
acceptable to the staff at D.F.S. At this stage the 6 items
in dispute are not of a significant cost-increasing nature.
2. D.F.S. staff have already accepted in principle the cost
cutting elements of the restructuring package. The Company's
concession of the remaining 6 items would not have a negative
effect on the cost saving programme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cost reduction programme which was put in place in
1990 was the very minimum corrective action necessary to
secure the near term future of the Company. The response from
the majority of staff was positive and settlement was reached
as detailed in the letter of 8th August, 1990. Despite
protracted negotiations there are 6 items still not resolved
at D.F.S. and the Union has not complied with the conditions
of employment presently in place with all other clerical staff
in the Company.
2. The income package agreed in August, 1990 protects the
earnings of all clerical staff. It is a fundamental
requirement for staff who enjoy this income package that they
carry out the clerical functions required by management for
the orderly running of the business. The Company must have
control over operations and expenditure in order that the cost
reduction programme can succeed. The Company must eliminate
practices which lead to a lack of control. It is a
fundamental principle that all overtime must be worked and
recorded on the clock. In the interests of all the Company
has shown substantial patience in its negotiations with the
Union and agreed to compensation for changes at D.F.S. as
detailed in the I.R.O. letter of 11th January, 1991.
Unfortunately this offer was rejected by the Union and there
are 6 items still unresolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the matters at issue.
Having noted the overall terms agreed and accepted by the majority
of the staff the Court makes specific recommendations as follows.
Half Hour Tea Break
Whilst noting the principle to which the Company wishes to adhere,
in respect of this issue insisting on the break being taken does
not appear to be a benefit to anybody. The Court therefore
recommends that the Union's claim be conceded in this case.
Early Starts
The decision as to when it is appropriate for work to be done must
in the final analysis rest with Management. The Court therefore
does not recommend that they be obliged to offer work at any
particular times which does not strictly relate to the
requirements of the task in hand.
Weekend Overtime
On the basis of the submissions made it appears to the Court that
this overtime in some respects is akin to jobs which in other
industries are done on a 'call out' basis. Bearing in mind the
location of the D.F.S. and the nature of these tasks the Court
recommends that the workers be given the choice of dealing with
the work on either an overtime or a call out basis.
If the workers concerned choose to go on call out, in accordance
with the usual industrial practice, they work only until the task
is completed and the worker paid a guaranteed minimum of 3 hours
at the appropriate overtime rate.
If on the other hand they are seeking to have the task
incorporated into overtime the Court is of the opinion that the
Company is entitled to insist on appropriate work being done for
the minimum five hours guaranteed and the Court so recommends.
Grading and Job Descriptions
The Court does not consider that any feature of the work in the
D.F.S. warrants any major distinctions being made between the
staff here concerned and other clerical employees of the Company.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the same grading
structure with the same obligations to do the work appropriate to
that grade generally apply to all those involved in this case.
Other Issues Outstanding
The Court is of the opinion that these should be further discussed
directly by the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
26th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.