FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Use of Clocking System for Patrol Verification
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimants comprise of seven Residential Service Attendants in the Students' Residential Facility of the College at Trinity Hall, Dartry Road, Dublin 6.The Union's claim is for payment of a security allowance for using an electronic clocking system to verify patrols of Trinity Hall and its grounds during the night shift undertaken by the claimants as an integral part of their duties.The seven claimants were all appointed Residential Service Attendants in September 2003, and all of them undertook the patrolling duties concerned during the night shift using an earlier version of the electronic clocking system to verify the patrols undertaken until technical difficulties arose with the clocking system in April 2005. During that period the Claimants neither sought nor were paid a Security Allowance for using the electronic Clocking System.In September, 2005, a revised electronic clocking System was put in place which the claimants refused to use unless they were paid the Security Allowance of €22.37 per week paid for many years to dedicated security personnel working in the main Campus of the Respondent.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1 This function historically is proper to night security staff and not to RSA's. If the RSA's are to do the work they sould receive the relevant allowance.
2 The work is not within the workers terms of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1 The health, safety and welfare of the students and staff is central to the Colleges argument. The patrolling mechanism employed on the 12am shift is crucial in this regard.
2 Patrolling the 12am shift using a recording mechanism is a task the RSA staff previously carried out as a matter of normal routine. It is not acceptable to stop carrying out a task which has been part of their normal duties for the greater part of 2 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the claim before it is not based upon the night shift patrolling duties of the Claimants but rather upon their use of the electronic clocking system to verify those patrolling duties. It is equally clear to the Court that the claimants historically used an earlier version of the electronic clocking system in dispute while neither seeking nor receiving any payment to use it and that the claimants undertake a wide variety of duties and are not dedicated security personnel.
The Court having carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions made to it by the parties disallows the claim on the various bases that (a) the claim is not based upon the undertaking of the night shift patrolling duties, (b) the Claimants undertook those duties historically while neither seeking nor being paid the security allowance in question and (c) the fact that the Claimants are not dedicated security personnel.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd May 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.