Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87114 Case Number: LCR11120 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JIC FOR STATE IND. EMPLOYEES - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 1600 general operatives for an increase in basic pay.
Recommendation:
5. The claimants have a traditional pay relationship with general
operatives in the Construction Industry, and they have argued in
the past for the retention of this relationship. It was clear
from the evidence at the hearing that the workers concerned
consider that the earnings of construction workers are in excess
of those applying in their case and that any differences should be
redressed.
In this connection the Court invites attention to Recommendation
No. 5212 dated 29th May, 1979 in which it is stated that "It was
argued by the unions that these workers are building workers and
would be covered by the Agreement for the building industry but
for the fact that their employer is not covered by it. If this is
the case, then on the basis of fair comparison they would be
entitled to the same rate of remuneration taking all elements of
pay and other benefits as a whole." Both parties agreed that pay
should be determined on this basis.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claim should be
progressed through the establishment of a management/union Working
Party to establish whether the claimants are in fact in receipt of
the remuneration applicable to the general operatives in the
Construction Industry and to agree to any action to be taken in
the matter.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87114 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11120
J.I.C. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11120
Parties: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 1600 general operatives for
an increase in basic pay.
Background:
2. The workers involved in this claim are employed as general
operatives mainly in the Department of Defence and the Office of
Public Works. General Operatives in Government Departments have a
traditional pay relationship with general operatives in the
construction industry. The current basic rate of pay of these
workers is #131.52 per week.
3. The Unions contend that the pay of the workers concerned has
fallen out of line with that of similar workers in both the public
and private sectors and that a growing gap has developed over
recent years between their basic pay and that of craftsmen in
Government Departments. Accordingly, in January, 1986, they
served a claim on the Official side for a basic pay increase of
approximately #30 per week in the pay of the workers concerned.
The Official side rejected the claim and the matter became the
subject of discussions between the parties at local level and at
meetings of the Joint Industrial Council for State Industrial
Employees. In the course of these discussions the Unions sought
the introduction of a special payment or differential as distinct
from increase in the basic rate in order that the basic pay
relationship with the construction industry might be maintained,
and also sought the setting up of a joint Employer/Union working
party to examine the present pay relationships and establish the
most appropriate relationship for the future. This was also
rejected by the Official Side and the original claim by the Union
Side was then referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 19th March,
1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) Arising from settlements under the 24th and 25th wage
rounds and following the implementation of the first
phase of the 1981 rationalisation programme (details
supplied to the Court) the gap between the basic pay of
the workers concerned and general operatives in other
sectors of the Public Service has widened considerably.
(ii) The rate of pay for local authority craft workers is
determined by reference to the average pay rates in an
analogue of 18 companies in the public and private
sectors. The average rate for a general operative in
the same 18 companies is #162.37 per week compared with
the state industrial operative rate of #131.52 per week
and the Local Authority rate of #148.04 per week. If
the same exercise was conducted in respect of the State
industrial employees and Local Authority general
operatives the adjustment under the analogue would be
#39.57 per week for the State industrial employee and
#29.55 for the Local Authority general operative
(details supplied to the Court). Instead, increases of
#8.72 and between #11 and #15.22 respectively were
awarded.
(iii) In a listing of the top 100 general operative wages in
the Union's research department, Local Authority and
Health Board workers, at the maximum of scale, rank at
number 56. The State industrial employee general
operative rate however, is below the 100th grade on the
same list.
(iv) In accordance with the latest Central Statistics Office
figures, the average earnings for unskilled workers in
the construction industry is #179.24 per week, while
the basic rate in the industry, to which the pay of the
workers concerned is linked, is #132.52 per week. The
additional earning capacity of the building worker in
private industry is denied the State industrial
employee general operative. Furthermore, a comparison
between the earnings of workers in the transportable
goods industry and those in the building industry shows
that the pay of building workers fell far short of the
increase in earnings of workers in the transportable
goods industry in the period 1981 to 1986 (details
supplied to the Court).
(v) A comparison between the basic rates of pay of craft
workers (maximum of scale) in the Public Service and
the State industrial employee general operative rate on
the 1st May, 1987 ( at which time the 25th round wage
increase plus the first phase of the analogue agreement
will be applied to the craft rate, and the 25th wage
round increase plus two phases of the rationalisation
deal will be applied to the general operative rate)
shows that the general operative rate will then be only
70% of the craft rate, the lowest pay relationship with
the craft rate of any general operative grade in either
the public or private sectors (details supplied to the
Court). This relationship will fall to 67% following
the final application of increases due to craft workers
under the analogue review. The traditional pay
relationship between the two groups of workers in the
past has varied between 85% and 93%. There has been no
attempt by the Official Side to close this unjust gap
which has developed over the past ten years between
these two categories of workers.
(vi) The average pay relationship between skilled and
unskilled workers in employment generally is 85%. This
is borne out by making a comparison between the average
rates of pay of craftsmen and general operatives in the
analogue of the 18 companies used to determine the rate
of pay of craftsmen in the Public Sector, which
represents a fair cross-section of employments
generally (details supplied to the Court).
(vii) In Labour Court Recommendation No. 10289 in respect of
the construction industry, where the general operatives
have 91% of the craft rate, the Employers argued that
the basic rate should be held down on the basis that
"actual earnings are about 35% up on the basic rate."
This proves that general operatives in the construction
industry have the potential to earn much more than the
workers concerned, even though the two groups of
workers are linked for pay purposes.
(viii) A Union study of workers' living standards shows that
while the real value of pre-tax earnings almost
recovered their level of seven years ago, the
ever-increasing PAYE/PRSI burden under successive
Budgets has ensured that the living standards of the
average working class family remain as much as 10%
lower than in December, 1979. The workers concerned
are in a much worse position in this respect, given
that their rate of pay is well below the national
average and declining steadily in relative terms.
(ix) Regardless of what comparisons are made on pay, the
State industrial employee has fared worse than any
other similar category of worker. Therefore, even
taking the state of the public finances into account,
the particular case of the workers concerned must be
recognised and rectified in the interests of equity and
social justice.
Officials Side's arguments:
4. (a) The workers concerned have pay parity with general
operatives in the construction industry. In addition
to the basic pay they are paid a daily meal allowance
of #1.50 and most of them qualify for travel time
payment under the terms of the Dublin Working Rules
Agreement. These workers may also receive additional
payments made in the construction industry and while
engaged in certain other duties, such as storekeeping
duties (details supplied to the Court). Therefore,
the earnings of general operatives in Government
Departments are equivalent to those of their
counterparts in the construction industry.
(b) The pay of the workers concerned has always been
related to that of their counterparts in the
construction industry. This pay relationship was
re-inforced in 1979 following Labour Court
Recommendation No 5212 when a #5 per week increase
which had been granted solely to workers in the
construction industry in Labour Court Recommendation
No. 4903 was paid to general operatives in Government
Departments on the basis that these workers were
building workers and were covered by agreements for the
building industry, as argued by the Unions at the time.
There have been no developments since then which would
warrant the special increase now sought by the Union
Side in respect of general operatives employed in
Government Departments.
(c) In 1986 workers in the building industry, including
general operatives in receipt of the same pay as the
workers covered by the present claim, also sought a
substantial pay increase. In Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,289 the Court rejected this
claim. It would be inappropriate therefore, to concede
a pay increase to general operatives in Government
Departments when a similar claim on behalf of their
counterparts in the private sector was rejected.
(d) During discussions on this claim the Union Side
suggested that the real level of earnings of general
operatives in the construction industry was higher than
the basic rate. In support of this they referred to
the statement attributed to the Construction Industry
Federation in Labour Court Recommendation 10,289 that
actual earnings in the building industry were about 35%
above the basic rate - the earnings figures quoted
related to 1984. The Official side approached the
Construction Industry Federation and sought information
on earnings in the construction industry. The
information furnished (details supplied to the Court)
demonstrates that the earnings of general operatives in
the construction industry are not greater than those of
general operatives in Government Departments. In any
event, the statement contained in Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,289 referred only to the earnings
of craftsmen in the construction industry and not to
general operatives.
(e) The suggestion that general operatives in the
construction industry receive payments not made to the
workers covered by this claim is refuted by the
statement made by the construction industry group of
unions in their submission to the Labour Court that
only 15% of general operatives in the construction
industry are in receipt of plus payments (Paragraph
9(viii) of Labour Court Recommendation 10,289 refers).
It is clear, therefore, that the construction industry
group of unions accepted that, apart from exceptional
situations, general operatives in the construction
industry were not in receipt of earnings over and above
those available to the workers covered by this claim.
(f) Concession of this claim would result in general
operatives in Government Departments receiving a higher
rate of pay than their counterparts performing the same
or similar work in the construction industry. This
would be inappropriate particularly as the workers
covered by the claim have better conditions of
employment than their private sector counterparts.
These workers are in secure employment at a time of
high unemployment in the construction industry and
unlike workers in that industry they have the benefit
of a non-contributory pension scheme.
(g) Comparisons between the pay of the workers covered by
this claim and the pay of other groups, particularly
craftsmen in the public service and general operatives
in local authorities, are not relevant as a pay
relationship has never existed between the workers
concerned and these other groups.
(h) The cost of conceding this claim would be about #3m per
annum. Apart from any other consideration it would be
inappropriate to incur a cost of this order in current
economic circumstances. In this regard, the Government
in a statement on 18 September, 1986, drew attention to
the need for pay moderation and pointed out that the
grave outlook for the public finances in 1987 and the
fact that public sector charges constitute an important
element in the overall cost structure of the economy,
make it specially important that particular restraint
should be observed throughout the public sector.
Concession of the claim could also give rise to major
repercussions in the private sector.
(i) The Official Side is opposed to concession of this
claim and considers that there is no merit in it.
However, should the Court decide to recommend an
increase it should fall to be dealt with under the
phasing arrangements provided for in Clause 3.3 of the
25th round pay agreement for the public service.
(j) In all the circumstances, the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The claimants have a traditional pay relationship with general
operatives in the Construction Industry, and they have argued in
the past for the retention of this relationship. It was clear
from the evidence at the hearing that the workers concerned
consider that the earnings of construction workers are in excess
of those applying in their case and that any differences should be
redressed.
In this connection the Court invites attention to Recommendation
No. 5212 dated 29th May, 1979 in which it is stated that "It was
argued by the unions that these workers are building workers and
would be covered by the Agreement for the building industry but
for the fact that their employer is not covered by it. If this is
the case, then on the basis of fair comparison they would be
entitled to the same rate of remuneration taking all elements of
pay and other benefits as a whole." Both parties agreed that pay
should be determined on this basis.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claim should be
progressed through the establishment of a management/union Working
Party to establish whether the claimants are in fact in receipt of
the remuneration applicable to the general operatives in the
Construction Industry and to agree to any action to be taken in
the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
__________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
24th April, 1987
T.McC./J.C.