Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94693 Case Number: AD9511 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KILKENNY CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW216/94.
Recommendation:
The Court is satisfied that this is an appropriate time to
consider the matter when there is no dispute arising and thus it
may be considered without reference to specific individuals.
The Court recommends that the Union accepts that the plumber may
act as his own driver where he is using Corporation transport in
the course of his duties.
Therefore, the Court upholds the appeal of the Corporation and so
decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94693 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
KILKENNY CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW216/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1992, the Corporation bought a new van for use by one of
its plumbers. The Corporation wanted the plumber to drive
the van himself. The Union maintains that it is proper for a
general operative to drive the van, not the plumber.
Agreement could not be reached as to who should drive the van
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and, failing agreement there, to a Rights
Commissioner. A hearing took place on 25th October, 1994.
The Rights Commissioners recommendation follows:-
"I recommend that each side accepts that this issue is
dormant for the moment."
Since the issue was referred to the Rights Commissioner the
general operative has retired and the plumber has been
promoted to Assistant Foreman. The van is at present being
used by the water and sewerage caretaker. Both parties
accept that the dispute is no longer a live issue. However,
the Corporation intends to return the van to the plumber in
future and to have the plumber drive the van himself. The
Union still maintains that a general operative should be the
driver.
The Corporation appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on 24th November, 1994, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Kilkenny on 7th February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Van driving is a non-craft duty. A special rate of pay
exists for this work. Transferring the van driving to
the plumber would be to erode promotional opportunities
for drivers.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No other local authority engages a driver for plumbers.
It is more cost-effective to have the plumber drive the
van himself. The water and sewerage caretaker who has
the van now drives it himself and the Union has not
objected to this.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that this is an appropriate time to
consider the matter when there is no dispute arising and thus it
may be considered without reference to specific individuals.
The Court recommends that the Union accepts that the plumber may
act as his own driver where he is using Corporation transport in
the course of his duties.
Therefore, the Court upholds the appeal of the Corporation and so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour
17th February, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman