Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94247 Case Number: REA9511 Section / Act: S32 Parties: MCGRATH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Alleged breach of the Electrical Contracting Industry Registered Employment Agreement (Travelling time).
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties.
The right to travel time, as outlined in the Registered Agreement,
was not disputed during the hearing.
The Court accepted that the claimant started and finished on site,
but in the absence of proof to the contrary, found that the
Company did not exercise its right to require the worker to start
on site.
The Court, is consequently, not satisfied that the claim is well-
founded.
The Court recommends that, for the future, the Company should
specify to employees, in advance, the location to which they are
required to report for work.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94247 ORDER NO. REA1195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES:
McGRATH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES FEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged breach of the Electrical Contracting Industry
Registered Employment Agreement (Travelling time).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker, an electrician, who was
employed by the Company from the 8th of July, 1991, to the
14th of May, 1992. For almost the entirety of the duration
of the worker's employment, he was located at the Digital
Ireland Limited plant, approximately one-third of a mile
distant from his employer's workshop. The Union is claiming
that, in accordance with the above R.E.A., Clause 6(a), the
worker is entitled to payment of one hour's pay for each day
that he was required to present himself at the Digital plant.
The claim was rejected by the Company on the grounds that the
worker was not required to start on site.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th of
March, 1994, in accordance with Section 32 of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1946. The Court investigated the dispute, in
Galway, on the 1st of March, 1995, the earliest date
convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in clear breach of the R.E.A. Clause 6(a)
regarding the payment of travel time. This clause has
been the subject of a Court hearing (Interpretation
INT391) which clearly supports the case for the worker.
2. Requirement to start on site is evidenced by the fact
that if the worker was not on site by 8.30 a.m. or if he
departed before 5.30 p.m., he would have been docked
pay.
3. The principle of the contract must be upheld,
irrespective of whether or not there may be other claims
pending.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Electricians employed in Digital were not required to
start there. When the contract with Digital commenced
17 years ago, the electricians all started at the
Company's workshop, about one-third of a mile away, and
then went to the Digital factory. Over the years,
because of the near permanent nature of the work in
Digital, and because it suited many of them, the
practice gradually developed of electricians starting at
the site. In many cases this was more convenient than
starting at the workshop. However, at no time did the
Company exercise its right to require the electricians
to start there.
The Labour Court, in INT391, decided travelling time
"applies only to those workers who are required to start
their day's work on site as opposed to starting work at
the contractor's shop".
2. The Company worked for Digital for fourteen consecutive
years until the closedown of Digital, in 1992. During
that period, up to thirty electricians were employed at
any one time, with almost fifty different electricians
working there during the 14 years. If this claim
succeeds, the sum payable would be close to #1 million.
3. The R.E.A. and the Working Rule Agreement provide a
grievance procedure for the resolution of disputes of
this nature. Clause 5 of the procedure calls for the
issue in disputes to be referred to the N.J.I.C. within
two weeks. This did not happen in this case. Had the
matter been brought to the attention of the N.J.I.C., it
would have been resolved before now.
ORDER:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties.
The right to travel time, as outlined in the Registered Agreement,
was not disputed during the hearing.
The Court accepted that the claimant started and finished on site,
but in the absence of proof to the contrary, found that the
Company did not exercise its right to require the worker to start
on site.
The Court, is consequently, not satisfied that the claim is well-
founded.
The Court recommends that, for the future, the Company should
specify to employees, in advance, the location to which they are
required to report for work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman