Two grooms should be employed for each horse

Oops

Aidan O'Brien on Monday stressed the inappropriateness of horseracing training yards not meeting the criteria for being recognised as agriculture workplaces during a Labour Court appeal hearing in Dublin, at which senior counsel for the Workplace Relations Commission suggested there should be two grooms to care for each horse.

The ratio of two separate grooms per horse, to allow for adequate time off for all staff under legislation that covers working hours, was also a point pressed through the hearing's chair by committee member Sylvia Doyle, who was sitting alongside chairman and barrister Alan Haugh.

Since February 2016, racehorse training yards no longer qualify for working hours exemptions that are allowed in agricultural workplaces, as defined by industrial relations law.

At an initial hearing last month, it emerged that Ballydoyle Racing, run by O'Brien, had been issued with a compliance notice by the WRC under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 following an inspection last year that found some staff had worked 19-hour days and had worked 28 days without a day off.

In what is being perceived as a test case by the broader racing industry in Ireland, Ballydoyle is not challenging the WRC findings but basing its appeal on the belief racehorse training yards qualify as being exempt under the criteria for agriculture workplaces.

The 2015 Industrial Relations Act defines agriculture as "raising animals or crops for human consumption", but stud farms are exempt.

'Our thing is dealing with animals'

Earlier in Monday's hearing, Clem Murphy, a senior Coolmore bloodstock consultant, sought to outline the intrinsic links between the Fethard stud and its sister training division at Ballydoyle.

And O'Brien told the hearing: "Our thing is dealing with animals, it's an everyday thing, and it's a very precise, complicated thing, training them. We used to be in agriculture and we were moved out of agriculture, and where we are now is unsuitable.

"When we were in agriculture we were totally compliant, but now we're not in agriculture we're not compliant."

One of the criteria that allows certain sectors to be exempt from elements of industrial relations law is the requirement for a continuity of production and service.

That was another area focused on by O'Brien, who spent a large part of his near two-hour stint giving evidence explaining how relationships between highly strung and sensitive thoroughbreds and their grooms and work-riders is of critical importance to optimising their performance on the track.

"It's all about knowing your partner," he explained. "If you have two working together over a period of time, it becomes telepathic - a horse doesn't have to be told and the person doesn't have to ask. The horse becomes that person's best friend.

"It becomes so much a part of these people's lives; to stop them coming in on their Sunday off, it's offensive."

'Horses are different'

O'Brien and one of his head grooms, Robbie Manton, gave evidence to the effect that often staff will voluntarily come in on their day off to ride one of their horses or as Manton put it, "to receive congratulations if one of their horses had enjoyed a big win".

Doyle stressed that the compliance notice was issued because of alleged breaches of legislation enshrined in European health and safety law.

"I'm concerned with your obligation as an employer to provide the requisite rest periods; I'm not concerned with their love for the horses or how they love to go off to the races," she said in relation to the long hours.

"The obligation is on the employer, not to tell them that they have these rest periods but to ensure they take them."

O'Brien countered that "horses are different" and that these were "athletes getting ready for big races, so continuity is vital".

Two grooms per horse

Much of the session was spent outlining the minutiae of the roles played by the various staff at Ballydoyle, with Manton noting that each groom looks after between four and six horses.

It was evident from the outset there is a considerable gulf in what the WRC expects under basic industrial relations legislation and the reality of life in a yard.

Doyle and Noel Travers, senior counsel for the WRC, both proposed employing two staff per horse would solve the issue in hand, suggesting a principal and subordinate rider.

Travers, who repeatedly referred to Ballydoyle as Ballymore, said: "If you had two grooms per horse, everyone could have their statutory leave. What is the huge difficulty with the number of personnel?"

Doyle used the analogy of the Health Service Executive, noting there is a 'changeover hour' in hospitals for doctors and nurses.

In response, Manton observed that when his twin daughters were born in University Hospital Waterford, the doctor on duty didn't go home when his shift ended because he wanted to deal with a complication pertaining to one of the newborns.

Doyle suggested that at Ballydoyle, "it is about the success of the horse," but O'Brien repeatedly insisted that "people are first, always".

The case continues on Tuesday.

Awesome suggestion and one that I am amazed that the NHRA has not implemented. They should update their "Power of one" theme for 2016 - still proudly displayed on their website in late August 2017 - to the "POWER OF TWO" and insist on two grooms per horse in every yard. While they are busy with the new theme, they should increase the grooms take out of winning stake to TWO percent.

Good for job creation

What is it that they say? We have plenty jobs at R25 per hour but non at R50 !!

Owners will be paying these additional salaries

Catch 22. In principle yes implement it. In practice, it is not affordable surely? Another thread the other day showing the prices of training fees and the fees contained in owning a horse. If like some people's argument on the other thread fees need to be reduced, how can that happen when employing more people? At the end of the day training is a business, can't reach ones bottom line at the same rates with employing more staff.

A good idea, maybe for every x amount of horses an extra groom need be appointed but two grooms for one horse is absurd imo.

The same argument can be made that each person should have two doctors, two banks, two lawyers etc in order for the one doctor, bank, lawyer to receive the correct amount of leave or so not to be overworked.

this is crazy. the article states each groom looks after between 4 and 6 horses. so every 50 horses need 10 grooms. to have proper time off you probably need 5 extra grooms who will rotate across the whole string. so about 15 per 50 or a ratio of about 1 groom for 3 horses in total . 2 grooms per horse is retarded. that means they work every second day.

Absurd to have 2 groom's per horse.
Find me one trainer who think it's a good idea or one owner who will like to pay for it.

Not one!!!!!!

Zietsman Oosthuizen wrote: Absurd to have 2 groom's per horse.
Find me one trainer who think it's a good idea or one owner who will like to pay for it.

Not one!!!!!!

Ziets i.e. We need two of you (if the world could handle that) :lol: to make sure you don't take a holiday only every 8 years. :woohoo:

The biggest problem in South Africa is unemployment
There are many people who are untrained for any type of work
and many who don't want to work
There are also those who wish to find work and are unable to do so
The red tape to run a business in the RSA is ridiculous
Once you employ a person it is difficult to fire them
We have often used staff from a broker for seasonal highs and if as
we did in the past moved them to fulltime staff we have been amazed
as to all of a sudden from being a top class worker they become problems
Late in the morning, sick days, funerals etc etc
I don't believe that a groom in the RSA looks after more than 3 horses and most do 2

Ballydoyle lawyers seek to have compliance order withdrawn
BY RICHARD FORRISTAL8:32PM 29 AUG 2017
Ballydoyle legal representatives sought on Tuesday to have the compliance notice that prevents training yards meeting the criteria for recognition as agricultural workplaces withdrawn.

Since February 2015, racehorse training yards do not qualify for working hours exemptions that are allowed for in agricultural workplaces, as defined by industrial relations law.

The basis of the Ballydoyle Racing legal team's argument on the second day of a Labour Court appeal in Dublin is that the compliance notice issued after an inspection by the Workplace Relations Commission did not state how the employer was in contravention of the grounds under which the commission made its finding.

In his closing argument, senior counsel Mr Paul Gallagher argued for Ballydoyle that industrial relations legislation makes "very clear why the grounds must be set out, because the compliance notice is seeking to get the employer to comply".

"It isn't a formality," Gallagher added. "It has a very specific purpose, given the consequences. It is remarkable that there is no mention in the compliance notice of the issue that has taken up so much of the court's time, which is the agriculture exemptions.

"Even if the [WRC] inspector was satisfied that the exemption didn't apply, the grounds are not set out."

Standard working hours regulations

Gallagher proffered the view that, if grooms and work-riders at Ballydoyle, run by champion trainer Aidan O'Brien, met the criteria that would see them considered agriculture workers and therefore not subject to the standard working hours regulations under industrial relations law, then the employer would have had the opportunity to fulfil its statutory requirements in that regard and provide the requisite rest periods.

As had been the case a day earlier, it was again established during the hearing on Tuesday that some Ballydoyle employees had worked 28 consecutive days without a day off.

Among the staff benefits that might constitute acceptable compensation under law, Gallagher outlined extended holidays that go beyond statutory requirements, free accommodation, medical check-ups and a subsidised canteen.

He also proposed that failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence. He argued that, because of the failure to state the grounds of the contravention that led to the compliance notice, "it is, on its face, defective".

'That's what the groom does'

He added: "By any version of the law and the facts, [the work of grooms and exercise riders] is agricultural activity. The groom does work with the horses - that's what the groom does.

"What part of cleaning out stables, feeding the horse, grazing the horse, minding the horse when it's travelling, is not caring for animals? What part of it is not animal husbandry? The WRC has not addressed that."

On the specific matter of the compliance notice, the WRC's senior counsel Noel Travers rejected any suggestion of criminal liability on behalf of the employer. He also defended the manner in which the 1976 Industrial Relations Act was amended in 2015 to preclude the rearing and training of racehorses from being recognised as agricultural labour.

Gallagher noted that the specific change to the Industrial Relations Act 2015 was not required by European law, while Travers argued nation states are free to make such derogations internally.

Gallagher said: "The Industrial Relations Act can't take away a derogation that existed. It can't create a criminal offence for something that was entirely lawful.

"It is a principle of our law that such an amendment must be referred to, but it doesn't, it amends it solely for the purpose of that act and not for any other."

Earlier, the Labour Court panel, comprising chairman and barrister Alan Haugh and committee members Sylvia Doyle and Jerry Shanahan, heard WRC Inspector Pat Phelan also reference the 2015 Industrial Relations Act amendment in explaining why he concluded grooms and work-riders aren't agricultural workers.

He noted the amendment defines agriculture as "raising animals or crops for human consumption".

'World-class racing outfit'

Phelan stated that another element he took into account when deciding they were not exempt was a description on Ballydoyle's own website. "It describes itself as a world-class racing outfit, racing horses, involved in sporting activity," he said.

Gallagher, who also observed racing falls under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, countered: "There's nothing sporting at Ballydoyle - this is a serious business."

On the issue of not setting out the grounds for the compliance notice relating to the agriculture exemption, Phelan accepted he may not have done so in writing. However, he said he had made Ballydoyle's HR manager Tom Cummins aware at a meeting in October 2016.

"We set out that they would need to put in writing the grounds for being considered exempt," he said. "The onus is on the employer to prove the exemption applies to them in the first place."

Gallagher said: "The exemption applies provided the workers are wholly or mainly engaged in agricultural activity. Even if it is not wholly, it is mainly, and that is sufficient."

Stud farms do qualify for exemption, and the interlinking nature of Ballydoyle and Coolmore was again stressed.

On Monday, O'Brien had referred to those at Ballydoyle being charged "with firing up the genes" that contribute to Coolmore's success, and Gallagher reiterated that assertion on Tuesday.

The appeal hearing, which is being viewed as a test case for the greater racing industry in Ireland, is now concluded, but a verdict is not expected for weeks.

Great idea, fund it with a 20% deduction from all bookmaker bets

Why not do it out of the stable increases suggestion? Owners don't need more stakes