Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92452 Case Number: LCR13762 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (CDVEC) - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of portering staff for payment for the operation and monitoring of security alarm systems.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties is quite satisfied that the operation of security alarm
systems and monitoring equipment by the porters does not warrant
any general payment to the staff concerned. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Unions' claim. It does
recommend that further and favourable consideration be given to
the Committee's offer of an honorarium to individual porters
willing to carry out associated call-out duties.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92452 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13762
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (CDVEC)
DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND FINANCE
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of portering staff for payment for the
operation and monitoring of security alarm systems.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Committee began introducing security alarm systems into
schools in the early to mid-eighties. When the Committee
requested the porters to operate these systems the Unions raised
the issue of payment of an allowance. At the same time the Unions
were preparing a separate pay claim and decided to pursue both
issues jointly. The porters operated the alarm systems under
protest pending the outcome of the claim.
3. The pay claim was the subject of a Labour Court investigation
on 13th July, 1990 and was subsequently rejected in Labour Court
Recommendation No. L.C.R. 12952. The Unions raised the issue of
payment for the operation of the alarm systems as, in their view,
the Court did not comment on same in its recommendation and the
issue was still live. The Committee rejected the claim on the
grounds that operating the alarm and monitoring systems
constituted part of the porters' duties. The porters ceased to
operate the systems with effect from 1st December, 1990.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
21st January, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on 26th
February, 1991. Following the conciliation conference the
Committee offered to pay an annual 'phone honorarium of #200 to
one authorised named key holder in each centre who has a 'phone
and is obliged to answer call-outs. The offer was rejected by the
Unions and a further conciliation conference was held on 17th
December, 1991. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on 23rd July, 1992 for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court
hearing took place on 3rd September, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The operation and monitoring of security systems was never
part of the porters' duties except for the brief period when
they operated them under protest. It is not contained in
their written list of duties.
2. The Committee contends that under the Clause which states
inter alia that porters are responsible for the security of
the premises, operating the alarm and monitoring systems is
part of their duties. This is not so. Porters have always
been responsible for security. Introduction of these systems
represents major changes in work practices and their
introduction should be agreed and negotiated in advance.
C.D.V.E.C.'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Operating the security alarm systems does not create any
additional work.
2. Porters' terms and conditions of employment include
responsibility for security of the college/school to which
they are assigned.
3. Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects in
the Public Sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties is quite satisfied that the operation of security alarm
systems and monitoring equipment by the porters does not warrant
any general payment to the staff concerned. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Unions' claim. It does
recommend that further and favourable consideration be given to
the Committee's offer of an honorarium to individual porters
willing to carry out associated call-out duties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
21st September, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.