Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93536 Case Number: AD93106 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the College against Rights Commissioner's recommendation CW187/93 concerning claim for a "dirty money" allowance.
Recommendation:
6. Having examined the submissions of the parties, the Court
considers that the claim in this case is for a straight forward
increase in pay for well established duties and as such is subject
to the terms of the P.E.S.P. The Court does not find that
compelling reasons have been established within the terms of
P.E.S.P. to justify concession of the claim and therefore upholds
the employers appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93536 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the College against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation CW187/93 concerning claim for a "dirty money"
allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the College as senior
laboratory attendants. Their duties include, cleaning up the
dissection room, preparing animals for and cleaning up after
operations. In January, 1993, the Union submitted a claim on
behalf of the two workers concerned for a "dirty money" allowance.
The College rejected the claim. The Union referred the matter to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
20th August, 1993, the Rights Commissioner recommended as
follows:-
"I recommend that the College concedes the claims for
the two named workers, the allowance to be paid on a
daily basis for tasks which are to be agreed between
the Union and the College as being appropriate for the
allowance and that this recommendation is particular to
the Veterinary College".
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
College to the Labour Court on 9th September, 1993. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 1st November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Other workers in the Veterinary College are in receipt
of a "dirty money" allowance for duties that are no more
onerous than those of the workers concerned.
2. Workers employed in U.C.D. are paid the allowance even
though the nature of their work is less dirty than those
of the workers concerned.
3. The dirty nature of the work carried out by the workers
concerned is not in dispute.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is not disputed that part of the duties of the two
workers would be regarded as unpleasant.
2. Both employees knew of these duties on their promotion
to the grade of Senior Laboratory Attendants in 1988.
3. Laboratory staff in other areas of UCD are also engaged
in unpleasant duties, e.g. Zoology, Pharmacology,
Biomedical unit and at Lyons Estate. There are
approximately 40 staff employed in similar duties.
4. Three members of staff currently receive the allowance.
These payments were agreed in 1984.
5. No member of the laboratory/senior laboratory attendant
staff receive the allowance.
6. The concept of "dirty money" is no longer a feature of
industrial relations and in the context of current
remuneration packages such payments no longer apply.
7. The claim is clearly cost increasing and, therefore,
precluded under the PESP. The College is at a loss to
understand the Rights Commissioner's comments in this
regard.
DECISION:
6. Having examined the submissions of the parties, the Court
considers that the claim in this case is for a straight forward
increase in pay for well established duties and as such is subject
to the terms of the P.E.S.P. The Court does not find that
compelling reasons have been established within the terms of
P.E.S.P. to justify concession of the claim and therefore upholds
the employers appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th December, 1993 -----------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman