Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93270 Case Number: LCR14089 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union for:- (i) The restoration of an allowance to 2 dog wardens. (ii) Increase in the rate of pay for a pound keeper.
Recommendation:
1. ALLOWANCE:
Although the Court accepts that the use of intravenous injection
administered by veterinary surgeons is now the commonly used
humane method of destroying dogs, the alternative method used by
the claimants was the prescribed method in their area until June,
1992. For some years previously they received payment of #1500
p.a. for this service and so had established some rights in
respect of it. The Court is not satisfied that meaningful
negotiations preceded the change over and it considers that a
compensatory payment is justified. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the Society pays each of the claimants a sum of
#1,500 in full settlement of their claim.
2. POUND-KEEPER:
Having considered the submissions of the parties in relation to
this issue, the Court does not find grounds to recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93270 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
(I.S.P.C.A.)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:-
(i) The restoration of an allowance to 2 dog wardens.
(ii) Increase in the rate of pay for a pound keeper.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The claims were referred to the Labour Relations Commission in
November, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on the 20th
November, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 22nd April, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 11th May,
1993.
Claim I Allowance - Background The 2 workers concerned are based
at the Society's Limerick branch. Since 1988 they have been
involved in humanely destroying and disposing of dogs by the
captive bolt method. They each received an allowance of #1,500
p.a. for undertaking this duty. In June, 1992 the Society decided
that dogs would be destroyed by veterinary surgeons using the
intravenous injection method. The allowance was withdrawn from
the workers. The Union submitted a claim for the restoration of
the allowance. Management rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The allowance was withdrawn from the workers without
prior consultation with the Union. The new method used to
destroy dogs means that the two workers concerned have to
attend at kennels three/four times a week, retrieve dogs for
the VET, hold the dogs, then freeze and dispose of carcases
This additional work, heretofore paid for by the allowance, is
now unpaid. These duties add significantly to the number of
hours which the two workers are on duty. While in theory dog
wardens work a 39 hour week, they are liable for work over
seven days and must be available for emergencies at any time.
2. The allowance of #1,500 p.a. should be restored to each
worker retrospective to June, 1992 and the parties must
negotiate an acceptable compromise for the future.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The traditional captive bolt method of destroying dogs
is no longer acceptable to the Society and for ethical reasons
it decided to use the intravenous injection method. The cost
of employing a Vet to undertake this duty will cost in excess
of #3,000 p.a.
2. The Society is a charitable organisation, dependent on
voluntary contributions. It regrets the loss of earnings
sustained by the two workers concerned but cannot possibly
make funds available to pay compensation.
CLAIM 2. POUNDKEEPER - BACKGROUND:
5. 1 The worker concerned is employed by the Society as a
poundkeeper and is based in Waterford. His rate of pay is
#153.00 p.w. In October 1992, the Union submitted a claim to
the Society for the upgrading of the worker's post to
assistant dog warden with a salary of #11,314. Management
rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union's proposal to upgrade the post of the worker
concerned means that he would undertake extra duties including
the collection of licence fees, issue of summons/fines and
assist retrieval of dangerous animals.
2. The claim is not cost increasing. The worker's
involvement in the collection of licence fees/fines would
generate extra revenue which will be sufficient to cover the
increase in his salary.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Society already has a full complement of staff with
comprehensive and appropriate duties attached to each grade.
It does not need or require assistant dog wardens. Any
upgrading of a post would leave the Society liable to
repercussive claims from provincial dog wardens. The Society
would also have to replace the consequent pound keeper
vacancy.
2. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the terms
of P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. ALLOWANCE:
Although the Court accepts that the use of intravenous injection
administered by veterinary surgeons is now the commonly used
humane method of destroying dogs, the alternative method used by
the claimants was the prescribed method in their area until June,
1992. For some years previously they received payment of #1500
p.a. for this service and so had established some rights in
respect of it. The Court is not satisfied that meaningful
negotiations preceded the change over and it considers that a
compensatory payment is justified. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the Society pays each of the claimants a sum of
#1,500 in full settlement of their claim.
2. POUND-KEEPER:
Having considered the submissions of the parties in relation to
this issue, the Court does not find grounds to recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st May, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.