FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Cessation of "Working In The Rain" allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute regarding the proposed cessation of a “working in the rain” an allowance paid to approximately twenty seven Workers employed in the Public Realm Division of South Dublin County Council. The Council proposes to eliminate the allowance on the grounds that the claimants are now part of a larger group of one hundred and forty workers all of whom are required to work in the rain as part of their normal dutieswhen safe to do so. The Union argues that the workers are entitled to retain the allowance under the terms of the Haddington Road 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 16th December, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th February, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Union argues that the workers are paid the allowance for working through inclement weather. It argues that they so long as they are contractually bound to do so they meet the criteria for payment of the allowance.
2. The Union argues that the allowance is paid in respect of the conditions under which the work is performed and is unaffected by the department of the Council to which they are assigned for administrative purposes.
3. The Union asserts that as the allowance is pensionable it has the status of an “allowance in the nature of pay”and its cessation would be contrary to the terms of the HRA and would adversely affect their pension entitlements.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council is of the view that payment of the allowance can no longer be justified as it is not associated with an additional task that is over and above the normal duties of the workers concerned. The allowance relates to the circumstances in which work is performed and not to the duties themselves.
2. The Council argues that payment of the allowance to the claimants is inequitable now that they form part of a larger group of employees carrying out similar tasks as part of their normal duties.
3. The Council further argues that the allowance is outdated as the claimants are provided with protective clothing and essential equipment to aid them in carrying out their duties in all weather conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to the dispute the Court finds as follows:
1. The Allowance at issue is a Category 1 allowance within the meaning of the Guidelines for Addressing Local Allowances – Local Government Sector- November 2013.2. The Claimants are entitled to retain the allowance on a personal to holder basis.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th March 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.