Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94670 Case Number: AD9513 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC318/94.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that no grounds have been adduced to warrant
amendment of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
This Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94670 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC318/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The appeal concerns a worker who is employed as an area
overseer by the Council. He worked a limited amount of
overtime on Saturdays and Sundays supervising two
general operatives engaged on street cleaning duties in
the town of Muinebheag (Bagenalstown). In April, 1994
the Council advised the worker that he would no longer
be required to carry out this weekend supervision. As a
result of the Council's decision the worker suffered a
loss of earnings amounting to #20 per week gross.
2. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated
and referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 3rd November,
1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"1. I uphold the action by the County Council.
2. I recommend that the County Council pay to the
worker the sum of #520 and that this be
accepted by him in full and final settlement
of his claim."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 15th November, 1994 the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal on the 13th February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the withdrawal of the overtime from the worker
concerned the cleaning duty has been carried out by
workers unsupervised. The Council claims that the
executive engineer supervises the workers. The engineer
states however that this is not her job and that she
does not wish to become involved in direct supervision.
2. In the present situation duty sheets are drafted by a
clerk typist and checked by the engineer. The
hierarchical system within the Council provides for a
reporting system of workers, gangers, overseers,
engineers, county engineer, county manager. The
Council's decision has broken this system. Its action
could ultimately lead to a position where overseers'
work becomes redundant and promotional outlets eroded.
3. The Union is seeking the return of the worker concerned
to supervisory duties, with compensation for the period
when he was taken off these duties.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council decided to terminate the overseer's
supervision of the two general operatives because of the
very limited number of hours worked by them at weekends.
2. The area engineer resides in the town and can readily
identify whether the work is carried out in a
satisfactory manner. He can also certify any payments
due to the workers.
3. The Council has a very limited budget allocated for
street cleaning in the town.
4. The worker concerned has sought an increase of his
monthly mileage limit of 640 miles on the basis that
this allocation was insufficient to enable him to
adequately supervise his area. By eliminating the need
for weekend supervision and the associated mileage
incurred this will effectively release a total of 96
miles per month which can be used to facilitate area
supervision.
DECISION:
The Court finds that no grounds have been adduced to warrant
amendment of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
This Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman