FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARDMAC, BAM, MERCURY ENGINEERING, JONES'S ENGINEERING, HA O'NEILL, HEGARTY, SUIR ENGINEERING & BECKETT PLASTERING (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COMMITTEE OF THE ICTU DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Compensation for Extended Working Day
UNIONS ARGUMENTS: 3. 1. The Union state their Members parking arrangements on-site were altered in 2019 resulting in an extended working day of up to two hours. 2. The Union are seeking the Court to recommend that workers on the site be compensated appropriately as a result of this extended working day or that the Court would recommend further engagement between the parties. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 4. 1. The Employer states those workers affected by the changed parking arrangements in 2019 were offered the opportunity to return to parking on-site and the majority of workers affected are, since early 2020, now parking on-site. Some workers chose not to return and to avail of other car parks. 2. The Employer states that the cost of the claim before the Court is conservatively estimated at €55 million which is unsustainable and in any event each worker on site already receives daily travel time or allowance payments. RECOMMENDATION: The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court has noted carefully the factual history of the matter and notes that at various periods between 2010 and 2015 construction workers on the client site did not have access to free parking on site. The Court notes the Trade Union commissioned sample study which showed that a significant proportion of the workers concerned in this claim were on site during this period. The Court notes also that it is not the case generally that workers in this industry are provided with free car parking on the site. Similarly, the Court notes that the 226 workers who were on the site in July 2019 when access to on-site parking was removed to allow construction of a multi storey car park on the client site had been offered a return to free parking on the site by March 2020. In the meantime, they had been provided with free parking at an alternative location and free transport from there to the site. The Court notes that the Client has made arrangements, at an estimated cost of €55m, to provide free parking at locations on site and elsewhere during the construction project. Those arrangements include the provision of free transport to the construction site from the remote car parks. Finally, the Court notes that the workers concerned in this claim receive a travel allowance or country money while employed on the site. Both of these payments relate to the worker’s travel to the work site. Taking account of all of the facts surrounding this matter the Court cannot find a basis for concession of the Trade Union claim or to recommend further engagement in relation to the matter. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
