Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94339 Case Number: AD9463 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 140/94.
Recommendation:
The Court does not find that grounds have been adduced to warrant
rejection of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the Union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94339 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 140/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Council as a cleaner in 1986. Her contract of
employment stipulates since 1987 that she works 48 hours
over 6 days. The worker claims that she made a verbal
agreement with Council officials in November, 1993 that
she could undertake her cleaning duties on a 'task and
finish' basis. This meant that the worker did her
morning cleaning, finished, returned later and undertook
further cleaning, finished, came back at closing time
and locked up. The Council maintained that no such
agreement was reached and early in 1994 made deductions
from the worker's wages for hours not worked, on the
basis that she was not at her place of work when
supervisors checked her area. The Union claimed that
the Council breached the worker's conditions of
employment by not paying her on the basis of a 48-hour
week. Management rejected the claim.
2. The dispute was referred to A Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 16th May, 1994
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"I recommend that the Claimant accepts that the
contract is for 48 hours at the agreed hourly rate.
This does not confer on the Council the right to
switch her willy nilly from place to place at will.
It does however confer on the Council the right to
expect her to work at normal rate (75% on the BSI
scale of performance) for the full contracted hours.
If the Claimant feels that she cannot fulfil her
contracted hours then she should have her Union
negotiate a variation of the contract with the
Council. If there is a failure to agree then the
matter should be processed through procedures and I so
recommend."
On the 17th June, 1994 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on the 14th September, 1994
(the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker received an undertaking from her supervisors
that she could operate her cleaning duties on a 'task
and finish' basis. This arrangement worked
satisfactorily until the Council forcibly tried to
change the worker's contract of employment by reducing
her hours from 48 to 39. This action resulted in a
reduction of #30 per week in the worker's earnings. The
Union rejects the Council's proposal to alter the
worker's contract to 39 hours over 7 days.
2. The Council claims that the quality of the employees
work suffered as a result of her operating a task and
finish system yet she was never reprimanded by
Management about the quality of her work.
3. The worker has suffered a significant reduction in her
earnings as a result of the Council's decision to reduce
her wages. The worker should be allowed to continue her
duties on a task and finish basis and all monies
deducted should be refunded to her.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned is employed on a 6 day 48 hour week
basis. She is expected to work the full 48 hours. When
she absented herself from work the Council deducted
those hours. The absented hours and dates were recorded
by supervisory staff. (Details supplied to the Court).
2. No agreement was made by Management with the worker that
she could operate a task and finish system. The
claimant took it upon herself to work these hours.
3. The Council is anxious to facilitate the worker. It has
offered her a reduction in her working week and this
offer was rejected. The Council is equally agreeable to
allow the claimant to work a 48 hour week provided that
she works the full hours.
4. The Council is prepared to implement the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation and is willing to enter
discussions with the Union and agree a new contract of
employment on behalf of the worker.
DECISION:
The Court does not find that grounds have been adduced to warrant
rejection of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th September, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman