INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
DUNDALK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Non-payment of agreed compensation for work in relation to the provision of apprentice summer courses.
2. The Union is in dispute with management over the non-payment of £300 (380.92 Euro) to one of its members who is employed as a higher order attendant by the College.
During Summer 2000, the worker assisted in the provision of training courses for apprentices. He was informed that he would be paid £1,100 (1396.71 Euro) for his work in relation to the operation of "Summer Blocks". Three technicians also involved in the training were to receive £700 (888.82 Euro) each because their input was less than that of the claimant.
The worker was subsequently informed that there was a change in the payment criteria and that his payment would now be £800 (1015.79 Euro). The worker agreed to carry out the work under protest but sought the payment of the additional £300 (380.92 Euro) which had been promised to him.
Management claims that an agreement was concluded with SIPTU and MSF to pay £800 (1015.79 Euro) to all technical staff in the College and that this agreement was applicable to the Union's member.
The ATGWU insisted on payment of the £300 (380.92 Euro) due to its member. As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th of March, 2001 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of April, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of September, 2001(the earliest date suitable to the parties).
3. 1. The worker was told that he would be paid £1,100 (1396.71 Euro) for his work in relation to the operation of summer courses for apprentices. He was paid £800 (1015.79 Euro) and is seeking the balance of £300 (380.92 Euro).
2. Management has failed to provide a credible explanation as to why the worker was underpaid.
3. The worker had a greater input into the provision of the summer courses than the three technicians.
4. The Union rejects management's claim that there will be knock-on effects if the claim is conceded.
4. 1. The payment of attendants and technicians for assistance in the provision of summertime apprentice training was agreed nationally between the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology and the Unions, SIPTU and MSF.
2. Concession of the claim will have knock-on effects for the College.
3. The College has honoured all payments due and no further payments will be made.
The Court has taken account of the written submissions made by the parties, and the additional points put forward at the hearing of this dispute.
The memorandum presented as the basis for terms for the operation of Summer Blocks in the year 2000 is ambiguous, indeed contradictory. The College gave incorrect information initially to the claimant regarding the basis on which the claimant would be paid, giving rise to his expectation of a higher amount. He did not accept the later alteration, given his accepted higher involvement.
In the overall circumstances of this particular case, the Court recommends that an additional £300 (380.92 Euro) be paid uniquely to this claimant, without prejudice or precedent.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st October, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.