FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Special Payment for Water Metering Project.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by Plumbers employed in Waterford County Council for an allowance to be paid for their cooperation with the installation of non domestic water meters. The Union’s claim is for payment of €3,500 each to the 8 plumbers who delivered this project.
The Council commenced a project to install water meters in non-domestic premises over a two year period. The Council had been considering using contractors to undertake the work, but following a consultation process with Unions it was decided to use direct labour. The project is now nearing completion and the plumbers have sought a ‘dividend’ for their input to the success of the scheme. The Union claims that it indicated from the outset they would be seeking such a payment as the Council has saved money on the scheme by not employing contractors or paying overtime through the general efficiency and good work of the plumbers. The Council rejected the claim.
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 21st July, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th April, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1The Council has to use outside contractors for this large project. For facilitating the project and to recognise the extra demand on their own plumbers as per agreement reached (details supplied to Court).
2. The Union contends that by doing the project in house the Council’s plumbers removed the need to hire outside contractors who would have been a direct cost to the Council on wages, insurance etc.
3 The Plumbers local knowledge brought in hundreds of new users and connections which could not have been done by outside contractors.
4. The Union argues that in delivering this project in house, by maximizing local knowledge and eliminating external contractor and associated costs the Plumbers concerned should receive compensation in the sum of €3,500 each.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The decision to do the metering project by direct labour was determined as a result of the costings associated with the pilot project. There was no mention of the payment of an allowance to the plumbers for doing this work.
2. This claim is precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016, which prohibits cost increasing claims.3. The work is done during normal working hours and comes within the duties of a plumber.4. The actions taken by the Plumbers in refusing to cooperate with the installation of the meters resulted in the local authority not being able to meet the target set by the Department to complete by the end of 2006. There is an excess of 300 meters still to be installed.
5. This claim calls into question the prospect of using direct labour for such projects going forward, in that Waterford County Council made a business decision on the basis of cost, however the delay in completing the project and this claim has resulted in a significant cost to this Local Authority which was not part of the original costings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim as made by the Union.
At the end of the project (which, it is anticipated, should be within a further 4 months) the formula offered by the Council should be used to recalculate that offer and this should be offered to and accepted by the Unions.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
11th May, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.