Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93458 Case Number: LCR14243 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of workers in the River Section of the Engineering Department for; (a) victualling allowance or lunch allowance for dredger operatives and, (b) payment for working through lunch.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the written submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not
find grounds which in its opinion would justify it recommending
concession of either of the Unions' monetary claims.
The Court does however recommend that the Company up-grade the
facilities in the dredgers to the level shown possible in the
feasibility study.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93458 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14243
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of workers in the River Section
of the Engineering Department for;
(a) victualling allowance or lunch allowance for dredger
operatives and,
(b) payment for working through lunch.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The River Section of the Engineering Department carries
out day to day dredging of the shipping channel and the berths
in the port and other duties such as transfer of staff from
different workplaces by launch. On 13th March, 1992, the
Unions submitted a claim on the Company for the payment of a
victualling allowance to workers operating the dredging plant.
A number of meetings took place at local level where the
Unions sought a food allowance in line with Clause 17.1 of the
Productivity Agreement (1989). Clause 17.1 states:-
"A lunch allowance of #4 will be paid to an employee
working at Bull Wall, South Wall, North Bank
Lighthouse, Skerries, Balbriggan, Bullock or Sandycove
Harbour during the period 12 noon to 3 p.m.".
2. The Company rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on the 2nd September, 1992 and the 15th
June, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the issue was
referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour
Court on 3rd August, 1993. The Court investigated the matter
on the 28th September, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers on the dredging plants who are away from the
quay wall do not have access to the canteen facilities that
other workers have.
2. The dregdging plant workers are deprived of the lunch
allowance that other workers enjoy under Clause 17.1 of the
Productivity Agreement (1989).
3. The cooking facilities on the dredging plants are
insufficient.
4. Clause 5.1 of the Productivity Agreement states that
operations on the dredging plant will not stop during lunch
periods and will continue straight through the lunch break.
The workers should be paid through the lunch break in line
with what is conceded to other workers in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A victualling allowance is paid to employees who work on
a 24 hours watch system and who have no designated lunch
breaks. These circumstances do not apply to workers in the
river section.
2. The river section staff have access to canteen
facilities at all times as their vessels have their facilities
on board. An eating-on-site allowance therefore, does not
apply.
3. Clause 5 of the Productivity Agreement (1989) contains
adequate compensation and payment for any disruption to the
river sections lunch arrangements.
4. Concession of either claim would have repercussive
effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the written submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not
find grounds which in its opinion would justify it recommending
concession of either of the Unions' monetary claims.
The Court does however recommend that the Company up-grade the
facilities in the dredgers to the level shown possible in the
feasibility study.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
8th November, 1993 ---------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.