Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95206 Case Number: LCR14731 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of one worker, for a refund of fees/expenses.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the arguments of the parties
recommends that the claimant be paid #200 in full and final
settlement of the dispute or alternatively in the event that he
agrees to resume giving manual handling training that he be paid
#350 in full and final settlement.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95206 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14731
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LIMERICK CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of one worker, for a refund of
fees/expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1992 the worker concerned took up a position
assisting the Personnel Officer, to produce the Corporation's
Safety Statement. Agreement was reached between the parties
that the appropriate allowance for this duty would be the
foreman's acting up allowance of approximately #52 per week.
In October/November 1992 the worker undertook a manual
handling instructor training course. Before commencing the
course he requested that the Corporation pay his fees. The
request was refused on the grounds that the Corporation
already had a manual handling training instructor. The
worker then undertook the course at his own expense. When
the Safety Statement was finished the worker moved to a new
post whereby in return for the provision of manual handling
instruction courses (among other duties) the acting foreman's
allowance continued to be paid to the worker. Subsequently
the worker claimed a refund of fees in respect of the manual
handling instructor course. The Corporation rejected the
claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 14th
December, 1994. As no agreement was possible the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 25th March, 1995. The Court investigated
the dispute on the 11th April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Corporation reneged on a verbal agreement made
between the worker and the Assistant Personnel Officer
in relation to the #52 allowance for assisting in
writing the Safety Statement. The allowance was not
paid in full for a time and was only restored when the
worker reluctantly agreeed to undertake manual handling
instruction.
2. The worker has put his expertise and considerable
knowledge at the disposal of the Corporation. He has
given manual handling training to between 600-800
workers. This has benefited the Corporation greatly.
The #469 expenses claimed is insignificant when compared
to the valuable assistance which the worker has given to
the Corporation, in the area of manual
handling-training.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker concerned originally applied for
expenses, in advance of attending the course, Management
refused because the Corporation already had a manual
handling instructor. However as a gesture of goodwill
the worker was allowed the time off, with pay, to attend
the course.
2. When the Safety Statement was finished in June, 1993 the
worker sought an outlet for his safety knowledge and a
new post was created for him on a temporary basis, in
July, 1993. The duties of the post included manual
handling training and the worker was again paid the
foreman's rate of pay until August, 1994. The manual
handling instruction took up about one day per week, on
average and the Corporation had difficulty in
quantifying the other duties he performed in return for
the foreman's rate of pay. His remuneration more than
covered any expenses incurred on the course.
3. The Corporation subsequently gave the worker the option
of a further temporary post involving safety and manual
handling and reporting on a daily basis to the Safety
Adviser, or a return to his substantive post in the
Sewerage Section. He chose the latter stating that he
was not prepared to give manual handling instruction,
under any circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the arguments of the parties
recommends that the claimant be paid #200 in full and final
settlement of the dispute or alternatively in the event that he
agrees to resume giving manual handling training that he be paid
#350 in full and final settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th April, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.