FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ENNIS TOWN 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 Nash |
1. Payment of Security Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Ennis Town Council in relation to a claim for the payment of a security allowance to Traffic wardens employed by the Council.
The Union's claim is that the traffic wardens are involved in collecting monies from an increasing amount of parking meters and as there are increasing numbers of thefts, the job is potentially dangerous.
Management's position is that an agreement concluded betwen the parties in 2001 provided for co-operation with the flexibility required and provided an allowance for Saturday work, technology allowance and a once off lump sum payment. Management further contend that normally traffic wardens are to be patrolling by 10am each morning but this is exempted when monies are being collected from parking meters.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 12th January 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The traffic wardens are involved in the collection of monies from a growing number of parking meters. At the time of the 2001 agreement there were approximately 12 parking meters in operation, this has increased to almost 60.
2 There have been many incidents of theft from parking meters and as a result, it is now essential that the machines are emptied more often. There is also an increased risk of theft from the wardens as they empty the machines. On the basis of the increased amount of machines and the increased risks involved, the Union's claim for a security allowance if fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Union's claim is without merit. The parties concluded an agreement in 2001 relating to the flexibilities required on the part of the traffic wardens in the future. In concluding the agreement there were allowances paid and a lump sum to take into account the additional work required. It is, therefore, inappropriate to provide an allowance for something that has already been paid for.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the terms of the agreement concluded between the parties in 2001, the Court can see no basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th June 09______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.