INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Rate of pay for carpenters.
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim on behalf of two workers employed by the College as carpenters, for the payment of an allowance amounting to £15 per week for using woodcutting machines. The Unions argue that the work is proper to that of a woodcutting machinist and that there is a substantial saving to the College as a result of the workers operating the machines. Management rejects the Unions' claim.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the matter and the issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 2nd of December, 1997. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of January, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of March, 1998.
3. 1. During the 4 years while the universal machine was in use, the workers concerned maintained the machine in working order and also provided a service to outside contractors who required assistance for machining timber. This assistance provided safety and a saving to the College by way of efficiency.
2. Trinity College Dublin, employ two woodcutting machinists who carry out the duties of woodcutting for carpenters employed by the College.
3. Allowances are paid to other craft workers employed by the College for operating machines in the course of their work.
4. At present the two workers continue to provide a service of machining to the College. The workers are not prepared to use any Woodcutting Machine in the future unless a machine allowance is paid by the College.
4. 1. The claim for an additional payment for allegedly using a woodcutting saw is unjustified and unwarranted. It is now an established fact that the saw being used as the basis for this productivity claim is no longer in use. The Unions can not establish any real or substantive grounds upon which the claim is based.
2. The claim is without merit and in breach of Partnership 2000.
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions does not recommend payment of an allowance in this case, given that the College does not require the use of the tools in question.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th March, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.