INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan
1. On Call Allowance
2. This case concerns a dispute between the employer and Trade Union in relation to a claim for the payment of an on-call allowance for one staff member who is available to attend outside normal working hours if required.The matter was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 9th February 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd April 2015.
3 1 The worker in question is always available when required and is frequently called in to work to deal with urgent matters as they arise.It is accepted that overtime is paid to the worker when his attendance is required but he should also be paid an on call allowance in relation to the requirement for him to be on call/ available.
4 1 The payment of an on call allowance to the worker is not warranted as he is paid overtime for all extra attendance at work. In any event there are no on call allowances paid to other employees in the organisation.
The Court notes that it is common case that there is no On Call allowance in place in Teagasc. The Claimant cannot, in the lifetime of the Public Service Agreement make or pursue a claim for such an allowance.
The Court further notes that it is common case that the Claimant is not required to make himself available for overtime. He is at all times free to refuse any overtime offered to him or to indicate that he is not available to work overtime. The Court notes that management, in the course of the hearing, undertook to confirm this position in writing to the Claimant to avoid any confusion arising in the future. Management also undertook to take steps to ensure that the Claimant would in future be called in for extra hours exclusively by the Farm Manager or by a person designated by him for that purpose.
Accordingly in that context the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim. The Court however makes no findings on whether the payment of an On Call Allowance should or should not be introduced into Teagasc for this category of staff.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th May 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.