Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86970 Case Number: LCR11150 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK CITY VEC - and - ITGWU |
Claim for pay parity with the grade of class aide employed by City of Dublin V.E.C. on behalf of 13 departmental and maintenance attendants.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties and subsequent correspondence has come to the
conclusion that no compelling reason exists for changing the
relationship which already exists with other appropriate grades in
the Cork area. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim for parity with class aides employed by
Dublin V.E.C.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86970 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11150
CC86966 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11150
Parties: CITY OF CORK V.E.C. AND THE DEPARTMENTS
OF EDUCATION AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for pay parity with the grade of class aide employed by
City of Dublin V.E.C. on behalf of 13 departmental and maintenance
attendants.
Background:
2. As a result of national negotiations and Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9823 an agreement on the rationalisation of pay
scales for certain grades employed by the V.E.C.s throughout the
country was reached. The workers in Cork V.E.C. were not included
in this agreement. The workers concerned decided to pursue their
claim, as outlined above, directly with City of Cork V.E.C. and
the Department of Education. Meetings were held between the
parties in early 1986 at which the Unions claim was rejected. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 5th June, 1986. Conciliation conferences were held on
28th August, 1986 and 28th November, 1986. As no agreement was
reached both sides agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held in Cork on 21st January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned perform precisely the same range
of duties, have the the same responsibilities and work
the same hours as their counterparts in Dublin albeit
under a different title (details supplied to the
Court).
(b) The Department in presenting its case to the Labour
Court on April 16th, 1982 (Labour Court Rec. No. 9823)
argued that any rationalisation in the V.E.C's should
follow the principles established in the local
authorities and health boards and that there was a long
standing and traditional pay relationship between the
grades, including attendants, in the claim and general
operative and related grades employed by the Local
Authorities and Health Boards. In fact the Court in
its recommendation at that time upheld the contention
that there was a more direct relationship between
V.E.C's and their respective local authority.
As the anomalies that existed between the local
authorities were eliminated under the 25th pay round
and Cork and Dublin Corporations now have the same
salary scale, we would contend that if the Department's
argument was followed through to its logical conclusion
then the City of Dublin and Cork V.E.C's should also
enjoy the same pay rates. Class aides in Dublin V.E.C.
enjoy a link to Dublin Corporation general operatives.
(c) These workers are the only group within the V.E.C.
(excluding caretakers and assistant caretakers who have
a satisfactory parity with Cork Corporation) who do not
enjoy the benefit of a national pay scale. In fact
these workers are the lowest paid groups within the
V.E.C. The R.T.C. in Cork City is the second largest
in the country and is larger than many of the
institutions in the City of Dublin V.E.C. Class aides
are employed in these smaller institutions and this
surely must be seen as discrimination of the workers
concerned.
(d) The Union believes that the Department saw some link
between Cork and Dublin V.E.Cs when it excluded both of
them from the national rationalisation exercise for
the V.E.C's throughout the country.
Departments' arguments:
4. (i) The workers concerned have traditionally enjoyed a pay
relationship with the grade of general attendant in
University College Cork. The latter grade was not
related to any other grade. Following Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9839, management have offered to
relate the grade of general attendant to group 4 in the
health board pay structure for pay purposes. This
would not involve parity of pay which is consistent
with the general pattern of pay relationships within
the Public Service. The same terms would be available
to the workers concerned onthe basis of their
relationship with the general attendant in U.C.C.
(ii) The Department contend that there is no case for a
departure from the traditional relationship and that
pay parity with class aide is not appropriate. Certain
grades in U.C.C. were recently granted a pay
relationship with the grade of class aide but not pay
parity (Labour Court Recommendation No. 10239 refers).
(iii) The claim now made is the same as one made in 1985 and
rejected by the Labour Court. In a claim on the
rationalisation of pay rates in V.E.C. outside Dublin,
the Irish Congress of Trade Unions sought the pay rate
of class aide in City of Dublin V.E.C. for what were
referred to as class aides in other VECs including Cork
City. In fact the grade of class aide does not exist
outside City of Dublin V.E.C. and Recommendation 9823
the Labour Court rejected the claim and recommended
that the Official Side's offer of a rationalisation
exercise similar to that carried out in the local
authorities be accepted.
(iv) A rationalisation exercise on the basis recommended by
the Court was agreed with the unions concerned,
including I.T.G.W.U., in early 1986. This resulted in
the granting to attendants in VECs outside Dublin and
Cork City of the rate for a labourer in the local
authority rationalised structure (this applies outside
of Dublin and the Cities of Cork, Limerick and
Waterford). Workers in City of Cork V.E.C. were not
covered by the rationalisation exercise because their
pay was already above the agreed rationalised rates.
It is submitted that concession of the class aide rate
to the claimants would not be consistent with the terms
of Labour Court Recommendation 9823 and could prejudice
the rationalisation exercise already agreed with the
unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties and subsequent correspondence has come to the
conclusion that no compelling reason exists for changing the
relationship which already exists with other appropriate grades in
the Cork area. The Court therefore does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim for parity with class aides employed by
Dublin V.E.C.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
28th April, 1987
M.D./J.C.