FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SIPTU / IMPACT / TEEU DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Cheque cashing time.
BACKGROUND:
2. Historically the Workers received time off in order to allow them cash their pay cheques at banks and this practice has continued after the introduction of electronic cash transfer and ATMs. The Workers were informed by letter dated 16th December, 2011 that the cheque cashing time would be removed with effect from Friday 6th January, 2012 as part of the Local Action Plan in accordance with the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. The Unions claim that 30 minutes was allocated for bank cashing time and that an extra 30 minutes was allocated as part of a productivity / reorganisation Agreement dated 1999. Management disagree and state that the full 60 minutes relates to cheque cashing time alone, as per the text of the Agreement.
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 10th June, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th August, 2013.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions do not object to the removal of the 30 minutes cheque cashing time. The dispute concerns the extra 30 minutes which was granted in exchange for the Workers cooperation with the Council's Reorganisation Agreement of June 1999 which facilitated an earlier finishing time of 2.00 p.m. on Fridays for the Workers.
2. The 30 minute cheque cashing time was erroneously linked to the 30 minute concession for the acceptance and cooperation of the Reorganisation Agreement of 1999. There was never a 60 minute allowance for the cashing of cheques and Management should engage in discussions regarding a buy-out of the 30 minute productivity element.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The removal of cheque cashing time in respect of all employees was identified as an efficiency and productivity measure under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. The proposal was accepted by the Unions representing all clerical administration and professional technical employees.
2. The Reorganisation Agreement of 1999 clearly states that"cheque cashing time will be increased to one hour .."There is no mention of any additional concessions from the Workers in return for the extra half hour.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Council’s removal of one hour’s cheque cashing time from outdoor workers represented by the three unions, which took effect from the beginning of January 2012.
The Council stated that the removal of cheque cashing time was included as a cost saving measure under its Local Action Plan under the Public Sector Agreement 2010 – 2014.
The Unions disputed the removal of one hour in respect of cheque cashing time on the basis that half an hour of such time was related to productivity measures agreed in July 1999 as a part of an overall re-organisation in the Council. Therefore it contended that the Council had no right to withdraw that element of the Agreement which bore no relationship to cheque cashing.
The 1999 Agreement which dealt with this issue states as follows:-
- “Pay cheques will continue to be issued at the normal times on Thursday but cheque cashing time will be increased to one hour and transferred from Thursday to Friday. It is proposed that staff will work through from 8am to 2pm on Friday, finishing at 2pm.”
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that the wording of the Agreement is very clear and the concession of an increase to one hour related specifically tocheque cashing time.In circumstances where cheques are no longer the method of payment, time to cash cheques is not relevant. Accordingly, in the context of a cost saving measure under the Public Sector Agreement 2010 – 2014, the Court can see no reason to reintroduce the disputed time off. Therefore, the Court does not find in favour of the Unions’ claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th September, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.