Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91303 Case Number: LCR13425 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of three workers for an increase in an electricity allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the view that part of the electricity used by the claimants is
to the benefit of the Corporation.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the workers concerned should
have an allowance to the extent of 40 units of electricity.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91303 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13425
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of three workers for an increase
in an electricity allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three workers concerned are employed as caretakers at the
City's Peoples' Park, Tycor Waterworks and Ballinanash Cemetery,
Waterford. They are in receipt of an electricity allowance of #2
per week which is taxable. The allowance was fixed at #2 per week
in the early nineteen eighties. The workers concerned live in
accommodation provided by the Corporation at a nominal rent. The
Union claims that the electricity allowance should be increased to
2.50% of basic pay. Management has rejected the claim. The issue
was not resolved at local level discussions. It was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 7th December,.
1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th January,
1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 22nd May, 1991. A Court hearing was held
in Waterford on the 24th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The allowance of #2.00 per week is subject to statutory
deductions, which even at the lowest tax rate leaves a net
allowance of only #1.26 per week. The Union's claim, if
conceded, would give a modest and fair net increase in the
allowance as well as providing for future indexation.
2. The Union's claim is not motivated by increases in
electricity prices although there were increases. The
allowance of #2.00 after statutory deductions was never a
realistic allowance that compensated for the usage of
electricity in the performance of duties.
3. The existence of an allowance is an acknowledgment by
Waterford Corporation that there is usage of electricity from
the domestic supply in the performance of a caretaker's
duties. It is very difficult to quantify the usage as
obviously it varies with the seasons of the year. While it
may be difficult to quantify, it is reasonable to conclude
that the electricity usage would exceed the actual payment of
#1.26 (or an even lesser amount at the higher tax bands).
4. One of the principle reasons for having a caretaker
living on site is the security value of his/her presence. In
order to be effective a well lit dwelling must be maintained.
5. In claiming 2.50% of basic pay the workers concerned are
not seeking to enhance their earnings. They are endeavouring
to ensure that they are not out of pocket because of
electricity usage associated with their duties. The Union is
fully appreciative of the financial constraints on Waterford
Corporation in common with Local Authorities.
6. No other category of worker can claim the extension of
the allowance. There is therefore no "knock-on" effect. The
Union has produced some facts and figures which it hopes will
be of assistance in evaluating the claim. (Details supplied
to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to 1990, only one employee of Waterford
Corporation had an electricity allowance. The particular
worker was the supervisor/caretaker of Tycor Waterworks
Depot who was appointed in February 1983 at Grade 5
waterworks caretaker level. The appointment carried with it
emoluments consisting of tenancy of house on site at reduced
rent (#1), an annual allotment of 2 tonnes of coal and a #2
electricity allowance.
2. The Corporation appointed a general operative as
cemetery caretaker in January 1983, with tenancy of house on
site at reduced rent (#1). In September 1990, the caretaker
accepted additional duties in respect of care of a toilet in
the cemetery grounds in return for an annual allotment of 2
tonnes of coal and a #2 electricity allowance.
3. The People's Park caretaker, appointed in April 1970 is
graded as foreman and has a tenancy of house on site at
reduced rent (currently #3.70). In October 1990 he was
allowed an annual allotment of 2 tonnes of coal and a #2
electricity allowance in settlement of a difference
concerning his extra duties as caretaker.
4. The #2 is an allowance against electricity, not related
to charges incurred by any particular beneficiary or in any
particular circumstances. It has been ascertained from the
E.S.B. that the cost of electricity has remained stable since
1983. The Corporation would contend that there is no case
for an increase in the electricity allowance of the three
caretakers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the view that part of the electricity used by the claimants is
to the benefit of the Corporation.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the workers concerned should
have an allowance to the extent of 40 units of electricity.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
7th October, 1991
T.O'D. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman