Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2003

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17439

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/720
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17439
(CC02/4756)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (OPW)

- AND -

AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. Increased allowance.


BACKGROUND:

2. The claim concerns 10 OPW plumbers who are required to handle untreated sewerage. They are currently paid a 'HUS' payment of €2.54 for each day this duty is required. The Union is seeking that the payment should be increased to €6.35 per day in line with the Mechanical Engineering and Building Services Contractors' Association (MEBSCA) Agreement. The OPW maintains that the HUS payment is linked to the Analogue (Local Government Craft) agreement. The OPW referred the claim to the Department of Finance which believed that there was no basis for the claim.

The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th of December, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of February, 2003.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The OPW's argument that the HUS payment is linked to the Analogue Agreement is incorrect. In LCR 16618, the Labour Court found that plumbers in UCD were covered by the MEBSCA agreement and recommended in favour of their claim.

2. The HUS allowance has been static for the last 3 years but the workers involved have to continue to deal with the danger associated with the work eg. discarded syringes at Garda Stations.

OPW'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The OPW is not in a position to increase the allowance as per advise from the Department of Finance.

2. The claim is cost increasing and is prohibited by the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). The claim should be dealt with in either the Joint Industrial Council or through the Parallel Benchmarking Process. Concession of the claim could lead to numerous knock-on claims.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Union, in making its claim, has quoted LCR 16618. The Court does not accept that the background is the same in the two cases. In the previous case, the employees had been receiving the relevant aspects of the MEBSCA agreement over the years, in parallel with other agreements. This is not the situation in this case.

The Court is also conscious that the claim is prohibited under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

The Court, for the reasons above, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this case.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
13th March, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow