FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CORPORATION (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Claim for payment of £3000 per worker on foot of privatisation of refuse services.
BACKGROUND:
2. In mid 2000, the parties reached agreement on the privatisation of the domestic / commercial refuse service. Since then various groups who had a subsidiary role in the service were impacted upon in some manner by the privatisation and concluded agreements with the Corporation, generally in the form of compensation for loss of earnings. The Unions' claim on behalf of 5 employees in the Stores area is for a compensation payment of £3000 per worker. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 27th of February, 2001. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 23rd of May, 2001. The dispute was received in the Court on the 23rd of May, 2001. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 22nd August, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' claim for £3000 per worker is fully justified because stores staff played a vital role in the provision of an efficient refuse service. It would have been impossible to effectively manage the system without the input of the claimants.
2. The duties and responsibilities of the claimants (details supplied to the Court), including the allocation of wheelie bins, a responsibility taken over from a private contractor, and the refuelling of refuse trucks, indicates the work carried out by the claimants in support of the refuse collection system.
3. The Unions accepted Management's commitments that all staff would be fairly treated. The Corporation has reneged on this commitment in respect of stores staff, given that other groups received payment for their cooperation. In the context of the overall settlement for other workers the Unions' claim is very modest.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The stores staff did perform certain duties in relation to refuse collection including refuelling of refuse trucks, issuing stock for the trucks processing invoices etc. The stores workers did not have a direct role in the provision of the refuse collection service and their involvement was only part of their normal stores duties. The effect of the privatisation of the wheelie bin service on stores staff was negligible. There was no change in work practice for the staff and neither has there been a loss of earnings.
2. The Corporation has reached agreement with all areas affected by the privatisation issue and has paid considerable sums in respect of verifiable loss of earnings. This additional claim is not justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral presentations made by the parties. The Court recommends that a "goodwill payment" of £1000 should be paid to the claimants involved in this case who assisted in the smooth transition of the privatisation of the refuse collection service. In return for this payment the Court recommends that the Unions must accept that the Corporation may seek some work practice changes, if so required.
The Unions have give a commitment that no further claims will be served as a result of the privatisation of the refuse services.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd September, 2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.