Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86881 Case Number: LCR11035 Section / Act: S67 Parties: O.P.W. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the regrading of 10 wild life wardens.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties in this case. It has found it difficult to arrive
at any definite conclusions on the appropriate rate to be paid
within the salary structure of the O.P.W. because of the
disparate approaches to the issue by the parties. However the
Court does accept that by reason of the experience gained since
the post of warden was first established that the scope and range
of their work is now such that establishment of a rate for the
particular job simply by reference to the general operative rate
seems unduly limiting.
The Court therefore recommends that the O.P.W. in the light of the
changes which have taken place since the position of warden was
first established, negotiate a new scale which will reflect these
major and fundamental changes.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86881 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11035
CC861528 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11035
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the regrading of 10 wild life wardens.
Background:
2. The grade of wild life warden was set up in 1974 and they are
employed in the three national parks situated at Killarney,
Letterfrack and Glenveagh. Their duties are to assist in the
protection of wildlife, comprising wild animals and plants on land
and in waters within national parks. Their present rate of pay is
based on the general operative rate (#131.52) plus a differential
of #13.46 with allowances for meals (#7.50) and unsocial hours
(#30), making a weekly total of #182.48. In November, 1985, the
Union first lodged a claim with the Office of Public Works
(O.P.W.) for a complete regrading of the job of wildlife warden
with an incremental scale and increased allowances. This claim
was rejected by the O.P.W. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 17th September, 1986.
A conciliation conference was held on 5th November, 1986. As no
agreement was possible both parties agreed to refer the matter to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour
Court hearing was held in Killarney on 3rd December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The job of wildlife warden has progressed considerably
since it was set up and now requires to be completely
regraded. The job as envisaged initially has been
considerably expanded and the work content has evolved
significantly in the intervening period. (Details
supplied to the Court). The grade is a unique one and
still has tremendous potential for development but this
cannot be achieved with the present pay structure.
(b) It is totally inappropriate to have the grade level
determined by the traditional construction industry
relationship between general operatives in the
O.P.W. and general operatives in the building industry.
Some of the duties now performed require a high level
of expertise and acquired knowledge. The workers
carrying out the job have proven themselves committed
to the progressive development of the national parks,
both as tourists amenities and as a significant part of
our national conservation effort.
(c) The Union would urge the Court, therefore, to give a
favourable recommendation to this small but significant
group of workers who have patiently awaited the outcome
of a serious examination of their case for regrading.
The Union is aware of the financial constraints placed
on the O.P.W. by the Government but believe firmly that
irrespective of which part of the public service has
responsibility for the national parks, the work
performed by the wildlife wardens will increasingly be
recognised as invaluable for this country.
(d) The basic pay rate of the wildlife warden is too low,
the differential should be at least double its present
level and there should be a proper incremental scale
for this grade which reflects the actual job and
development of the individuals in the grade.
O.P.W.'s arguments:
4. (i) The Office, deny that there has been any major
changes in the functions of the wildlife wardens over
and above what was envisaged when the grade was
established and the differential fixed in 1974. It
was, and is, accepted that with training and
experience the functions of the wardens have evolved
into what has become a more organised and efficient
service to the wildlife and to the public. This was,
and is, a natural process, bearing in mind that when
the grade was established in 1974 there was no
reservoir of experience to draw on. It was mainly a
matter of 'learn as you go' for all concerned. This
is not to suggest that the evolution of the
proficiency levels of the workers concerned to the
present standards were not envisaged or taken into
account when setting the differentials. It was,
indeed, considered that this would be a natural
development and it was taken into account when
determining the amount of the differential at that
time.
(ii) There are no particular educational qualifications
required for entry to the grade of wildlife warden.
This is basically the general operative grade with a
differential. While the supervisors and head
gardeners have no direct role in supervising the
wardens they do supervise other general operatives.
Any substantial increase in the pay of wardens would,
therefore, disturb the relationship with the
supervisory grades and lead eventually to follow on
claims on behalf of these grades.
(iii) The duties of wildlife wardens have very little in
common with those of the water pollution officers and
a great deal in common with those of wildlife
rangers. They may, or may not, have grounds for a
review of their differentials based on pay movements
in other areas. They did not however, in this
instance, pursue a claim for an increase in the
differential. They pursued a claim for a complete
regrading. The Office contends that if there is any
case for regrading, the most logical analogous grade
is the wildlife ranger. The claim for a direct link
with the water pollution officer does not stand up to
close examination and we ask the Court to find
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties in this case. It has found it difficult to arrive
at any definite conclusions on the appropriate rate to be paid
within the salary structure of the O.P.W. because of the
disparate approaches to the issue by the parties. However the
Court does accept that by reason of the experience gained since
the post of warden was first established that the scope and range
of their work is now such that establishment of a rate for the
particular job simply by reference to the general operative rate
seems unduly limiting.
The Court therefore recommends that the O.P.W. in the light of the
changes which have taken place since the position of warden was
first established, negotiate a new scale which will reflect these
major and fundamental changes.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___________________
20th March, 1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.