Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90270 Case Number: LCR13299 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for an increase in his plus rate.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The
Court would have to say there is a need to uphold the integrity of
the Agreement made between the Company and the Unions regarding
the procedures for dealing with cases in respect of an individual
worker. In so far as the substantive issues are concerned the
Court finds no grounds to alter the recommendation of the
Industrial Council.
Accordingly the Court rejects the worker's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90270 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13299
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for an increase in his plus rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 the E.S.B. decided to close the Transport Depot and
transfer the various functions and staff to other Dublin
locations. Between 1986 and 1988 negotiations took place on the
relocation. Under the proposals the worker concerned was to be
transferred from South Lotts Road to Transmission Organisation
(T.O.) (Dublin) based at Jamestown Road, Inchicore. On 30th
March, 1987 the Company sent the A.T.G.W.U. various information in
relation to the reorganisation of transport services which
included in relation to this worker the following:-
- he will hold his plus rate on a personal basis and it
will be included for overtime purposes. He will be the
senior general workman in the garage and will undertake
driving duties only in accordance with the 'pecking
order' in Transmission, Inchicore. When engaged on
"panel" driving he will be replaced at level 4 on a
temporary basis.
- his personal rate will be subsumed if promoted and will
be taken into account in determining whether a driving
differential is payable.
3. Following the issue of Industrial Council recommendation No.
1833(E) and its acceptance by the staff at Transport Depot the
worker concerned transferred to T.O. in April, 1988 with a plus
rate of #8 per week. Between 1986 and 1988 negotiations had been
taking place on changes in the differentials for transport drivers
and this issue was settled in 1988 and Industrial Council
Recommendation No. 1694 was implemented with effect from
September, 1986. Following the implementation of this
recommendation the differential paid to the worker was increased
from #8 p.w. to #17 p.w. in line with the increase in the
differentials for transport drivers. However, after 2 weeks this
was reduced again to #8. The worker concerned then processed a
claim through his Union for an increase in his personal plus rate
to #17 p.w. (this is now #18 p.w.). The Union on behalf of the
worker claimed that while working in the Transport Depot part of
the worker's duties involved the operation of a crane for which he
was paid the differential of #8 per week and that when the
negotiations on the relocation took place one of the conditions
for this worker's transfer was that he would carry his crane rate
with him. Therefore, if the transport drivers' differentials had
been implemented from the effective date, the differential paid to
this worker would have been increased and he would have been paid
retrospectively. This was rejected by the Company and the claim
was referred to the E.S.B. Industrial Council. Recommendation No.
2214 of 1st February, 1990 was as follows:
"Bearing in mind that this recommendation concludes this
issue, the Council finds that the personal-to-holder plus
rate paid to the worker concerned should be increased to
#10.00 per week from date of recommendation."
4. The recommendation was accepted by the Union on 26th February,
1990 and subsequently implemented. However, the worker concerned
was not satisfied with this and subsequently referred the matter
to the Rights Commissioner's service for investigation and
recommendation. The Company declined an invitation to attend a
Rights Commissioner's hearing on the basis that the claim had been
fully processed through the Company's internal negotiation and
grievance procedure. In May, 1990 the worker referred the matter
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 10th May,
1991 (earliest date suitable to the parties). The Company's
position is that in accordance with Clause 8 of the agreed
constitution of the Industrial Council, Recommendation No. 2214
of 1st February, 1990 was binding on both parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. While working in the Transport Depot part of the worker's
duties involved the operation of a crane for which he was paid
the differential of #8 per week. When the negotiations on the
relocation took place the Company was advised that if the
worker agreed to the move to Transmission Organisation
(Dublin) one of the conditions would be that he would carry
his crane rate with him. The Company stated in negotiations
with the Union on this matter that it did not know the reasons
for the plus payment. However, it was made clear by the Union
on several occasions during the negotiations that this was a
crane rate already held by the worker. The Company was free
at any stage to raise this issue if there were any doubts
about the payments made. If the transport drivers'
differentials had been implemented from the effective date the
differential paid to the worker would automatically have been
increased and he would also have been paid the retrospection.
The worker's claim should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In March, 1987 the Company proposed in relation to the
worker's transfer that he hold his plus rate on a personal
basis and that it would be included for overtime purposes.
Although the worker's file had no information or details in
relation to the plus rate the Company agreed to its
continuance. Driving differentials only apply on a permanent
basis to transport drivers. This employee as a general worker
could not under any circumstances qualify for a driving
differential on a permanent basis. The worker's rate of pay
as a level 4 general worker in transport depot was equivalent
to that of a transport driver. In April, 1988 the worker
transferred to Transmission, Inchicore and was given the
benefits of Industrial Council Recommendation No. 1734 (a),
which applied to general workers in Inchicore and he received
a substantial salary increase and lump sum payment.
2. The crane operation in Transport Depot would not at any
stage have warranted the application of a permanent driving
differential. If it had a transport driver would have
qualified for it. The application of an increased allowance
to the worker would cause serious relativity problems in
Inchicore amongst the transport driver category there. The
Company has fully honoured its obligations by allowing the
worker to retain his plus rate. The worker through his Union
has already processed this claim in accordance with the agreed
negotiation and grievance procedures. The Industrial Council
recommendation which issued on 1st February, 1990 was binding
on both parties in accordance with clause 8 of the agreed
constitution of the Industrial Council and was formally
accepted by his Union on 26th February, 1990 (details supplied
to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The
Court would have to say there is a need to uphold the integrity of
the Agreement made between the Company and the Unions regarding
the procedures for dealing with cases in respect of an individual
worker. In so far as the substantive issues are concerned the
Court finds no grounds to alter the recommendation of the
Industrial Council.
Accordingly the Court rejects the worker's claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
30th May, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.