FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (OPW) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Increased allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 10 OPW plumbers who are required to handle untreated sewerage. They are currently paid a 'HUS' payment of €2.54 for each day this duty is required. The Union is seeking that the payment should be increased to €6.35 per day in line with the Mechanical Engineering and Building Services Contractors' Association (MEBSCA) Agreement. The OPW maintains that the HUS payment is linked to the Analogue (Local Government Craft) agreement. The OPW referred the claim to the Department of Finance which believed that there was no basis for the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th of December, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of February, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The OPW's argument that the HUS payment is linked to the Analogue Agreement is incorrect. In LCR 16618, the Labour Court found that plumbers in UCD were covered by the MEBSCA agreement and recommended in favour of their claim.
2. The HUS allowance has been static for the last 3 years but the workers involved have to continue to deal with the danger associated with the work eg. discarded syringes at Garda Stations.
OPW'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The OPW is not in a position to increase the allowance as per advise from the Department of Finance.
2. The claim is cost increasing and is prohibited by the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). The claim should be dealt with in either the Joint Industrial Council or through the Parallel Benchmarking Process. Concession of the claim could lead to numerous knock-on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union, in making its claim, has quoted LCR 16618. The Court does not accept that the background is the same in the two cases. In the previous case, the employees had been receiving the relevant aspects of the MEBSCA agreement over the years, in parallel with other agreements. This is not the situation in this case.
The Court is also conscious that the claim is prohibited under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The Court, for the reasons above, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th March, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.