Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9669 Case Number: LCR15141 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of one worker for: (1) increased premium for shift working, (2) payment for an unsocial shift pattern.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, makes the following recommendation taking into
account the unique nature of this particular post:-
(1) A lump sum of £1,000 to be paid to the claimant.
(2) A special allowance of £2,000 per annum to be paid to the claimant
from 1st January 1996. This allowance to be paid for as long
as he performs this role.
(3) The rostered hours, as agreed by the parties, to continue as
currently operated.
This is in full and final settlement of this claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9669 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15141
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of one worker for:
(1) increased premium for shift working,
(2) payment for an unsocial shift pattern.
BACKGROUND:
2. Claim (1)
The claim concerns a worker who is employed as a Shift
Foreman in the Corporation's housing maintenance section.
The Union is seeking a substantial increase in the worker's
shift allowance which is presently 12.5%. The Union maintains
that the worker's shift pattern is very unusual with very
unsocial hours and therefore warrants a substantial increase
in shift premium.
Claim (2)
The Union is claiming an overscale payment of £50 on the
basis that, while the worker's post is at Foreman grade, he
has very arduous duties and significant responsibilities
which other foremen grades do not have. Management rejected
the claims.
The Union sought to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission but the Corporation was unwilling to attend a
conciliation conference. On the 2nd February 1996 the Union
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 2nd April 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Claim (1)
The shift pattern of the employee concerned entails
working every weekend, a period normally regarded as
time off. He is the only Foreman working this shift.
Should he wish to have time off at weekends he must take
leave.
2. In view of the worker's very unsocial shift pattern the
premium paid is very meagre when compared to workers in
other employments who receive substantially higher
premiums together with better allowances.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms and conditions pertaining to the post of shift
foreman were known and accepted by the worker when he
applied for the post.
2. The Corporation is agreeable to revise the worker's
on-call hours to his own stated requirements.
3. The shift premia paid to workers is common throughout
the Corporation. Concession of the claim could lead to
repercussive claims from other workers in receipt of
shift premia.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
PCW.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Claim (2)
1. The worker's duties involve providing emergency call-out
service in the Corporation's housing estates at night.
These duties can be arduous and very often can pose
safety problems for the worker. They are not what a
normal night shift worker would be expected to
undertake.
2. The worker is entitled to suitable compensation in view
of the very unusual nature of his job, and the very
unsociable and exceptional hours worked.
3. Although on the Temporary Foreman panel for many years
the worker has not been successful in his application
for a Temporary Acting Foreman post where normal hours
would apply.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The duties pertaining to the post of shift Foreman are
not commensurate with that of a normal Foreman because
there is no element of staff supervision. However the
post of shift Foreman was pitched at Foreman's wage
rate in recognition of the duties worked, and the
unsocial hours.
2. The Corporation made a once-off lump sum offer to the
worker which was rejected.
3. Concession of the claim could lead to knock-on claims
from other groups.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is therefore precluded
under the PCW.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, makes the following recommendation taking into
account the unique nature of this particular post:-
(1) A lump sum of £1,000 to be paid to the claimant.
(2) A special allowance of £2,000 per annum to be paid to the claimant
from 1st January 1996. This allowance to be paid for as long
as he performs this role.
(3) The rostered hours, as agreed by the parties, to continue as
currently operated.
This is in full and final settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.