FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Foul drainage allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1997 the Council agreed to pay all General Operatives (G.O.'s) employed in the drainage section a special allowance of €70.55 on the basis that the allowance would be paid to all G.O.'s in the drainage section. The allowance replaced a previous payment of Time + ¼ which was paid to all employees connected to sewer operations on basic pay only. The new allowance was never applied to TEEU members.
The Union’s claim is on behalf of TEEU members, 5 electricians and 1 fitter employed by Cork County Council. The Union is seeking the application of the Foul Drainage Allowance (Sewers) on behalf of its members. The rate current being applied is €70.55 per person/per week (10/03/05) The claim is for €84.66 per person/per week which represents a 20% differential between craft and non craft grades.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th March, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The non-application of the drainage allowance to the workers is discriminatory.
2. The Union contend that the workers are entitled to be paid the allowance on the basis of their involvement as demonstrated by the number of hours they are involved in sewer work, over 1600 plus hours per year.
3. No other craft category is involved in this area, this is unique to the claimants and no follow on or repercussive claims can ensue.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Payment of a guaranteed weekly payment for an ad hoc function is not sustainable.
2. The claim is cost increasing and as such precluded under Sustaining Progress.
3. Concession of this claim would have major repercussive effects through the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the circumstances of those associated with this claim are substantially different to those of the G.O. category. In that regard it is clear that the latter group are permanently assigned to the work attracting the allowance, whereas the craft workers are not.
In these circumstances the Court is of the view that the payment of the standard allowance in respect of time spent on the work in question is appropriate in respect of the craft group.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd August, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.