Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9642 Case Number: LCR15112 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BUS ATHA CLIATH - and - I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS |
Supply of safety footwear to bus inspectors.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
does not find grounds for recommending concession of the Unions'
claim.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9642 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15112
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BUS ATHA CLIATH
and
I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Supply of safety footwear to bus inspectors.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Unions submitted a claim on behalf of 77 bus
inspectors employed in 6 depots by the Company for the
provision of a pair of safety shoes each year plus the
option to buy a second pair at half price because they
are required to work in oily underfoot conditions at
major city centre stops and in the garages.
2. The Company rejected the Unions' claim on the basis that
the environment in which the inspectors worked did not
warrant the issue of safety footwear. It stated that
much of the inspectors' time is spent indoors or away
from the depots. The time inspectors spend in the depots
is minimal.
5. As no agreement was possible between the parties the
dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of he
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on 3rd November, 1995. No agreement was
possible at conciliation and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 16th January, 1996 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 11th March, 1996.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The inspectors are required to work in oily conditions at
city centre stops and in the Company's garages.
2. Inspectors in Irish Rail, who work in a less damaging
environment, are in receipt of safety footwear.
3. The inspectors are required to carry out their duties in
the same underfoot conditions as that of maintenance
staff who are in receipt of safety footwear.
4. Inspectors in Bus Atha Cliath want equal treatment with
that given to other grades within the Company.
5. The claim is a reasonable one and should be conceded by
the Company.
6. The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 puts the
onus on employers to provide the necessary protective
clothing or equipment to ensure the health and safety of
its employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The inspectors spend most of their time indoors or away
from the depots. The time spent in the depot yard is
minimal.
2. The working conditions of inspectors employed by Irish
Rail is very different to that of inspectors in Bus Atha
Cliath and is not a valid comparison.
3. The Company carries out a weekly cleaning programme of
depot yards as part of a prevention and safety programme.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is therefore precluded
under Clause 6 of the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work (PCW).
5. Concession of the claim would lead to a repercussive
claim from drivers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
does not find grounds for recommending concession of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th March, 1996 -------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY