FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : LONGFORD UDC - AND - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of on-call allowance and payment for extra duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company for over 30 years. The Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians (U.C.A.T.T.) lodged a claim on behalf of the worker for (a) 5 hours per week for being on call seven days per week, (b) 5 hours per week for opening and closing premises and (c) 5 hours per week for loss of overtime. The overtime claim was subsequently withdrawn. Discussions took place locally but no agreement could be reached.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 31st of October, 2001. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of December, 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Longford on the 26th of March, 2002.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is on call 24 hours, seven days a week.
2. The worker has looked after the roads in the urban area for 27 years.
3. The opening of the yard at St Patrick’s Terrace is an extra duty.
4. The worker has to be in the yard before 8am and he has to be the last to leave in the evening in order to operate the alarm.
5. The Union does not agree that the alarm is included in the productivity and flexibility agreement which was accepted by the Unions.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council has offered £1,500 as this claim is similar to one made and accepted by the area overseers of a sister authority.
2. The cemetery caretaker works 34 hours each week and is paid for 39 hours. This is to compensate him for overtime at weekends relating to funerals as he is not entitled to overtime.
3. The employer does not accept that opening a gate and turning off an alarm constitutes any significant demands on the worker.
4. Part of the agreement which was accepted by Unions includes co-operation with and utilization of new equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission of both sides and the subsequent information requested by the Court at the hearing.
The Court notes the offer made by the UDC to pay the sum of €1905 per annum, for overtime worked including telephone calls, general enquiries and any other duties performed outside of normal working hours. The Court notes that this offer was increased by the UDC to allow for the payment of overtime at the rate of time for time. The offer is made on the basis that the claimant may opt to stay on the current arrangement of being paid the appropriate overtime rate for time worked outside his normal hours; or to accept the offer as outlined above. Based on the information supplied to the Court, it is satisfied that this offer is not out of line with arrangements made in similar circumstances from other UDC's. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an on call payment.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the Union should reconsider this offer and give a decision on whether the claimant wishes to continue on his present arrangement or to accept the offer. The decision should be confirmed in writing to management within three weeks of the date of this recommendation.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for the payment of 5 hours for opening the yard, canteen and disarming the alarm both morning and evening, as the Court is of the view that such duties are part of his normal duties as Town Foreman.
The Court notes that the claimant has dropped the claim for compensation for loss of overtime, as it is no longer applicable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th April, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.