Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9339 Case Number: LCR13997 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IVEAGH TRUST - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 16 workers, for: (i) parity of pay, including eating-on site allowance and travel time, with workers' in Dublin Corporation, (ii) compensation for disturbance during reconstruction work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
recommends as follows:
(1) Pay Parity with Dublin Corporation
This claim is cost increasing and accordingly it is not
appropriate that the claim be pursued at this time.
(2) Eating on Site Allowance
The Court finds no grounds for the payment of this
allowance.
(3) Disturbance Allowance
The Court finds no grounds for the concession of this
claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9339 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13997
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IVEAGH TRUST
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 16 workers, for:
(i) parity of pay, including eating-on site allowance and
travel time, with workers' in Dublin Corporation,
(ii) compensation for disturbance during reconstruction work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Iveagh Trust is an independent voluntary housing charity
organisation whose main income is derived from rental payment from
housing estates and catering charges from the Iveagh Hostel
lodgings. It receives a small annual grant from Dublin
Corporation and the Eastern Health Board. The Trust employs 30
workers, (19 full-time and 11 part-time) in the following grades:
porters (basic wage #158 p.w.), care assistants (#168 p.w.),
cleaners and kitchen assistants (#3.60 per hour). The Union's
claim was submitted in 1992. Management rejected the claim. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 13th November, 1992. As
no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 8th January, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the
9th March, 1993.
Claim (1) pay parity, eating-on site allowance, travel time
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers in Dublin Corporation, Grade 3, which is the
designated portering grade, have a pay scale ranging from
#174.86 - #186.60. General operatives (Group I) who undertake
cleaning duties are paid on a scale ranging from #173.35
rising to #185.13. These employees are entitled to travelling
time amounting to one hour's pay per day within a designated
radius of the Iveagh Hostel. They are also entitled to a meal
allowance of #1.75 per day as part of their conditions of
employment.
2. The work content and responsibilities of the employees
concerned are similar and of equal value to that of the
workers employed by Dublin Corporation. They are working in
the same geographical area as the comparators and yet their
pay and conditions do not compare favourably to their
counterparts in the Corporation. They cannot be expected to
accept less favourable pay and conditions while doing similar
work. They are being unfairly treated.
3. Both the P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. recognised that anomalies
existed within the pay structures of both the Public Service
and Construction Industry (with which Dublin Corporation
maintains a link in terms of pay and conditions) and allowed
for the processing and resolution of claims to eradicate pay
differentials. This was done in the Public Service and the
Construction Industry. The rates of pay of the workers
concerned are substantially below the appropriate level and
the Company could rectify this situation by paying them the
rates which apply to similar workers in Dublin Corporation.
Claim 2
4. Disturbance Compensation
The Iveagh Hostel has undergone major refurbishment over the
past two years resulting in significant inconvenience and
disturbance to the workers concerned. They are entitled to
compensation for this inconvenience. The precedent for
payment of compensation in similar cases is well established.
Claim (1) Pay parity, eating on site allowance, travelling time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim for pay parity with workers in Dublin
Corporation is inappropriate. The Iveagh Trust is an
independent voluntary housing charity operating with a current
debt of half a million pounds (#.50m). It does not have access
to the same type of funds as Dublin Corporation. The Trust is
not in a position to sustain on-going losses. The main source
of income derives from rents which are set in line with Social
Welfare payments. The parity of pay claim alone would cost
#30,000 (not including pension costs and knock on claims from
supervisory staff). It is unrealistic to think that any of
this additional cost could be clawed back from clients.
2. The eating-on-site allowance is paid in Dublin
Corporation:
- Where the facilities for meals are unsatisfactory.
- The allowance is not payable.
- Where the lunch interval is more than half an hour.
- Where the worker is absent from duty.
- Where the worker returns home for lunch.
A roster applies in the hostel. Workers alternate between a
one hour and a half hour lunch break. On all days they have
access to canteen facilities. As part of their work they are
not required to leave the Hostel and so that access to canteen
facilities is consistant. Two workers are employed on the
Kevin Street Estate, one lives on site and can go home for
lunch. The other does not live on site, but both workers have
a one hour lunch break. Two workers are employed in Bull
Abbey Estate, one lives in Kevin Street and goes home for
lunch. The other avails of canteen facilities and a one hour
lunch break applies.
3. Concession of the claim would cost #7.700 anually.
4. The Union's claim for one hour's pay in relation to travel
allowance is inappropriate. All workers report to a local
work station and movement from estate to estate is at a
minimum.
5. The cost of this claim would be #23,800.
Claim 3
Disturbance Compensation
1. The refurbishment of the Hostel was carried out largely
by a subsidised loan from the Department of the Environment.
The criteria on which the loan operates is that it is
non-repayable provided that the Trust continue to provide a
service for current clientele The improvements have benefited
both residents and staff and have created a more comfortable
environment. The changes have resulted in a reduction in
resident capacity from 310 to 155. In addition the Trust has
employed 8 additional staff (mostly part-time).
2. The Trust cannot realistically afford to concede this
claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
recommends as follows:
(1) Pay Parity with Dublin Corporation
This claim is cost increasing and accordingly it is not
appropriate that the claim be pursued at this time.
(2) Eating on Site Allowance
The Court finds no grounds for the payment of this
allowance.
(3) Disturbance Allowance
The Court finds no grounds for the concession of this
claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
26th March, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.