FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Disturbance Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union for disturbance, and for on-going co-operation during County Hall renovations and temporary relocations. The overall project involves the building of an extension, nearing completion, adjacent to the County Hall site that commenced in April 2003 and the imminent renovation of County Hall. The entire project is currently scheduled from April 2003 to February 2006 and will involve up to three temporary relocations of staff to facilitate the entire project.
Workers are being asked to move to the extension in January 2005 to facilitate renovation of the County Hall Building and this involves co-operation with packing and unpacking of file crates during this transfer period. The renovation is scheduled to take 14 months to complete during which time the County Hall building will be closed.
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. At Conciliation the Council offered two days additional annual leave per year of the duration of the building works, pro rata would apply to staff who work reduced hours or who are not on site for the full duration of the building works. The Council also offered 20 hours paid overtime to eligible staff for extra work carried on outside normal office hours. The offer was balloted and narrowly rejected by workers. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th January, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Workers are required to carry out their full range of duties providing an uninterrupted, full and efficient service to the public whilst working, in effect on a building site for the last two years.
2. Workers have had to endure constant daily noise, pollution, constant angle grinding and drilling that commences early morning continuing throughout the day.
3. Workers are expected to carry out normal duties, i.e. dealing with customers at public counters, receive and respond to telephone queries, while experiencing high levels of noise, dirt and dust pollution
4. Workers relocated to the new extension without any reduction in service to the public and the offices remained open during the move.
5. Considerable savings were made as workers carried out packing, labelling and unpacking of crates. All this was carried out in addition to normal duties.
6. It is reasonable that workers have an expectation that management would compensate them for the disturbance caused to them during disturbances.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Workers did endure inconvenience during the construction of the extension and were offered 2 extra days annual leave per year of construction.
2. The Council did initially favour the carrying out of packing and unpacking during normal working hours to reduce costs, this was rejected by the workers. The Council then approved overtime subject to a maximum of 20 hours to cover all moves involved.
3. The financial position of the Council remains in a serious state, hence the continuing restriction on overtime, etc. across all grades of employees.
4. In as much as possible workers are being kept informed of the timetable for the move.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. In order to address the Union's disturbance claim, the County Council made an offer of two days additional annual leave per year for the duration of the building works; pro rata for those who work reduced hours or not on site for the full duration of the building works and a maximum of 20 hours overtime to eligible staff for any extra work, outside of normal office hours, associated with the refurbishment. The Court is of the view that the offer is reasonable in the circumstances and does not recommend any improvement in the offer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th July, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.