FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CORPORATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Overtime allocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the arrangements to apply in circumstances where a contractor is engaged by the Corporation utilising a road surface planer. In particular, the dispute concerns the availability of overtime to the Corporation's own employees on these occasions. The Union is seeking an arrangement whereby overtime would be made available to a gang of 5 Corporation personnel on an hour for hour basis equivalent to the amount of time worked outside normal hours on any project where a planer is used. The Corporation is prepared to provide overtime on an hour for hour basis equivalent to the length of time the planer is actually used outside normal hours. The Corporation disputes the Union's claim that the appropriate gang size is 5, stating that a gang should comprise 3 personnel.
Since the mid-1980s, there has been a local verbal agreement covering the use of planers which provides that two 10 tonne lorries would attend the planer and carry away spoil. The Union claims that the agreement provides that a gang of men would be engaged in the operation and would remain on the job until its conclusion. This is rejected by the Corporation.
In 1996, a formal agreement was reached between the parties covering the use of contractors, which included a provision covering the use of planers. A dispute arose in relation to a project in Magazine Road, Cork, when the application of the formal "Contractors" agreement provided for the use of planers by contractors where no ancillary direct labour was involved. This highlighted an anomaly in the agreement on the use of planers. The Union claims that, while a planer was used, the previous local agreement was not implemented. The Corporation's position was that the anomaly that arose should be addressed by reference to the formal agreement rather than "custom and practice".
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 10th of September, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Cork, on the 5th of November 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An agreement on staffing levels in the event of the planer being used has always existed and was operated accordingly (details supplied).
2. The Corporation was aware of the Union's position on the use of the planer prior to the issue of the letter of clarification on the 5th of September, 1996 (details supplied). Having received this letter of clarification, the agreement on the use of contractors in the Corporation was put to ballot, and accepted.
3. The Union made every effort during all negotiations, both local and at the Labour Relations Commission, to reach agreement on this issue. This included acceptance of both compromise proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The local agreement was made nearly 15 years ago and, while the Corporation is prepared to continue to honour it, it must be recognised that circumstances and technology have changed considerably over that time.
2. Over that period, the workers involved have received several special pay awards and general round increases on the basis of their agreement to co-operate with new technology and improve methods of working. This particular case is typical of what is involved in such commitments. The Union is insisting that a local verbal agreement made nearly fifteen years ago to cover large planers should also be rigidly applied to the mini-planers, on the basis that "a planer is a planer".
3. The Corporation is prepared to offer "time in lieu" to the two drivers and is prepared to agree a mechanism to allow a similar arrangement for a gang of 4. However the Union's demands are excessive when it is borne in mind that, in several instances where a modern planer may be used by a contractor, Corporation personnel would not traditionally be involved at all. Accordingly, time in lieu while the planer is on-site is a reasonable offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and has also taken into account the background including agreements on the use of contractors.
In the circumstances now pertaining, the Court recommends that:-
Time-in-lieu (i.e. overtime) on a one for one basis, as outlined in the Union submission Page 3 Paragraph 2, i.e., "A gang of four would work on the day the planer is used, but the second day would not apply, if both days fell on the weekend" be implemented for the time the planer is used. This arrangement to apply in all cases where the planer is on contract.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
21st of November, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.