FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. The payment of a craft allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by the Union that three general operatives in Carlow County Council did not receive a craft allowance to which they were entitled under a National Agreement made in 1984.
The Employer said the allowance was paid to the Workers up to 2010 but it was discontinued due to an administration error. The Employer confirmed that the allowance was paid again from late 2014.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th August 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25thOctober 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three Workers were part of a work gang which consisted of four members. One member of the gang was in receipt of the allowance, the other three were not.
2. The allowance was agreed at National level and is payable to all general operatives who carry out craftsman duties.
3. The Workers went to three different engineers in relation to the allowance being made payable to them.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The particular duties which attract the acting craftsman allowance include brick-laying, carpentry, plastering, painting and plumbing.
2. The acting craftsman allowance was not paid by the Council during the period October 2010 to December 2014 inclusive.
3. This is a cost increasing claim and is precluded by the Public Service Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
There is no doubt that the acting allowance, provided for by a national agreement, was not paid from approximately October 2010 to late 2014. The Trade Union was not able to definitively state by reference to any record or documentation that the allowance was not paid prior to 2010. The employer did provide the Court with extensive payroll data which supported the contention that the allowance was paid at least during the period from 2004 to 2010.The Employer confirmed that the allowance has once again been paid since late 2014.
The parties agreed at the hearing that the Trade Union side claim was not formally tabled until early 2014.
The Court recommends that the Council should make a payment to the claimants in respect of the non-payment of the allowance from 2010 to 2014. The records produced at the hearing of payment of the allowance for 24 months from October 2014 should be used to calculate the amount of compensation. The claimants should be paid the annual average of the two years October 2014 to October 2015 and October 2015 to October 2016 (i.e. amount paid in 2014/15 plus the amount paid in 2015/16 divided by two) for each year from October 2010 to October 2014 – a payment of four years in total.
This recommendation should be viewed as full and final settlement of the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
1st November, 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.