FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-111635-IR-11/MH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-111635-IR-11/MH. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he has been treated less favourably than his colleagues during the course of his employment as a General Operative in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council. The Worker has been employed by the Council since 1992. It is his claim that he has been treated in an inequitable manner in certain aspects of his terms and conditions of employment for example, the Worker contends that he is not in receipt of a washing and greasing allowance that is currently paid to colleagues carrying out analogous roles to that of the Worker. The washing and greasing allowance is an allowance paid to drivers of Council vehicles and this task is required to be carried out outside of normal working hours. The Worker further contends that his regular and rostered overtime hours of work have not been included for the purposes of calculation of his holiday pay entitlements. The Worker is currently seeking the retrospective application of the washing and greasing allowance and the payment of this allowance going forward. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that he has not been treated less favourably than his colleagues. Agreement could not be reached between the parties and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
On the 15th February, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"In effect what I am considering based on the submissions adduced at the hearing is whether or not the Claimant is being treated differently or less favourably to others generally in this regard. Here again I accept that no particular deviation from the norm has taken place.
In these circumstances I am not in a position to make a recommendation favourable to the Claimant".
On the 14th March, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th June, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that he is entitled to the payment of the washing and greasing allowance as it is paid to others who work in a similar role.
2. The Worker is required to work overtime and asserts that it is regular and rostered and therefore should be included in the calculations for his annual leave entitlements.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the Worker has been treated in a manner consistent with that of his colleagues and has not been disadvantaged in any way.
2. The Employer submits that the Worker is not entitled to payment of the washing and greasing allowance as this is carried out during normal working hours.
3. The Employer maintains that in relation to overtime the Worker has been remunerated appropriately and there are no monies owed to him at this time.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim regarding holiday pay.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for the retrospective payment of the washing and greasing allowance to this worker. However the Court takes the view that from the date of this recommendation, this worker should be treated no differently to other workers in similar circumstances.
Accordingly, from that date, he should be paid the washing and greasing allowance and be included in the discussions on this matter currently ongoing between the parties.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
2nd July 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.