FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIPPERARY NORTH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation to workers for call-out in line with other Councils.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of workers who are involved in emergency road gritting duties. The Union's claim is quantified as follows:
1.Four hours overtime at the appropriate overtime rate for workers involved in the filling of lorries with grit.
2.A minimum of four hours overtime at double time where individuals are called out.
3. Payment of telephone rental for workers involved in gritting.
4. A payment of two hours overtime at the appropriate rate for workers who accept telephone calls at home.
The Council rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in November, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Thurles on the 10th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Call out rates are paid by other councils and the Union is seeking similar payments on behalf of the claimants.
2. There is extensive pressure on the claimants and they are fully committed and must be available for call outs throughout the year. The arrangement is particularly difficult on the claimants over the Christmas and New Year periods.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is essentially a pay claim and is precluded under the PPF and SP Agreements.
2. The service being provided is not of an on call nature. The duties carried out are part of normal rostered overtime.
3. Management cannot justify higher payments based solely on the fact that payments of a higher nature are made in different local authorities. The task in each local authority is similar but other variables differ significantly.
4. The Council is prepared to discuss specific problems arising from the operation of the current scheme if such problems exist.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought payment of compensation for salt and gritting call out duties.
The Court has given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties to this claim. The Court accepts that during the winter period there is reasonable predictability that out of normal hours, salting and gritting on the roads will be required on a fairly regular basis; therefore, the Court recommends that formal rostering arrangements should be introduced for this work. As compensation for such availability, the Court recommends that rostered staff should be paid one hour's pay per day.
The Court also recommends that where notice is given prior to 3.00pm, for out of hours salt and gritting duties, such notice is reasonable and is of the view that normal overtime arrangements are adequate for the hours subsequently required
However, if notice for such duties is not given before 3.00 pm, then an element of inconvenience arises. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that an additional two hour's pay, at the appropriate overtime rate, is justified.
The Court further believes the duties involving in the preparation of the lorries with salt and grit forms part of the call out arrangements and does not, therefore, merit a separate payment.
The Court does not see merit in the claim for a telephone allowance.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th March, 2004______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.