FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Terms of analogue agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim, on behalf of general operatives, that the Council is not complying with the terms of the 1998 analogue agreement which provides for the issuing of one anorak every two years to this group of workers. The Union is seeking the provision of an anorak without any safety embellishments or additional high visibility trimmings.The Council did provide this type of anorak in 2001 on the understanding that a high visibility vest would be worn over the anorak. A dispute arose in 2002 regarding the provision of anoraks for general operatives. Following a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in February, 2003 the Council agreed to supply one anorak with immediate effect and to supply another jacket in 2004. Subsequently the Council informed the Union that, due to the nature of their work, the outdoor staff would be supplied with high visibility jackets in order to conform to Health and Safety standards. The Union claimed that the "ordinary" anorak should be supplied. Management 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 October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Roscommon on the 17th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The 1998 agreement was quite clear that an anorak was to be provided every two years. At an early stage in discussions the Union agreed to wear an anorak with two reflective strips similar to the ESB anorak and also to wear a reflective vest over the anorak if it were to be worn at work. The Council accepted the Union position and provided a plain anorak. However it subsequently indicated that it would not supply the agreed anoraks and that only reflective jackets would be supplied. The reflective jacket was already being provided at the time of the 1998 agreement and at the time the Council supplied the original anorak under the agreement.
2. The claimants have received one anorak since 1998. They are now due three further anoraks. The Union is seeking the provision of a plain anorak as previously supplied by the Council and by other Councils throughout the country.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of supplying anoraks to Council employees are threefold:
(i). Provide protection against the elements.
(ii). Increase the visibility of outdoor workers when working on roads in the vicinity of traffic.
(iii). The Council is required under the Health and Safety legislation to provide the necessary protective clothing or equipment to ensure the health and safety of its employees.
2. The Council sought the advice of its Health and Safety Officer in relation to the required safety standards in providing anoraks to its employees. The Health and Safety Officer advised that the high visibility clothing conformed to the relevant EN standards. The Council is obliged to comply with the standards that exist for the provision of this clothing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the additional information supplied after the hearing, it is clear that there is no standard approach by Local Authorities to the provision of anoraks.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that in this case the same type of anoraks be supplied as were provided previously by Roscommon County Council. Where appropriate, individuals should be supplied with and use high visibility vests which can be worn over these jackets.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd March, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.