Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87824 Case Number: LCR11589 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WICKLOW HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim on behalf of one worker for a salary increase.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends that the claimant's salary be increased to a
sum of #11,500 p.a. and implemented in accordance with the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery.
6. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
payment of an unsocial hours allowance.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87824 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WICKLOW HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker for a salary increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Commissioners
since January, 1979 as the Secretary/Harbour Master of Wicklow
Harbour. His current rate of pay is #9,789 per annum and he also
receives car and housing allowances of #10 and #5 per week
respectively. The Union claimed that he should be paid the Local
Authority Grade VI Rate and an unsocial hours allowance of #1,500.
The Commissioners rejected this claim. As no agreement could be
reached at local level the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No basis for a settlement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 9th July, 1987 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
on 27th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position of Harbour Master carries a high degree of
responsibility and accountability (details supplied to the
Court). The qualifications required for the position are also
very high (details supplied).
2. No unified system of grading exists for harbour masters
throughout the country. This worker's obligations and
responsibilities would, however, equate closely to those of
other harbour masters.
3. The Local Authorities and Health Boards have a very well
established and defined structure which recognises varying
degrees of responsibility. The worker here concerned is an
expert in a particular field and this expertise could be
called on at any moment. His salary should reflect the duties
and responsibilities of the position and the qualifications
required. The definition of Grade VI within the Local
Authority Health Board, Job Evaluation Scheme is as follows:-
"Alternatively, the Grading would be appropriate to
a job involving the application of a high level of
skill and/or experience in a specialist field, normally
requiring an understanding in depth of a recognised
technique and specific aspects of the Organisation
policy and procedures. The job holder would normally
work under the general supervision of a Grade VII or in
certain or in certain cases, a member of the Management
team".
4. The worker's current salary is less than the maximum of
the Clerical Officer scale in the Public Service which stands
at #11,401. It is marginally greater than the maximum for a
Clerk Typist/receptionist. His rate of pay does not come
close to any of the technical grades in the Public Service.
5. The Union is seeking a #1,500 on call allowance for the
worker because of the continuous requirement to be available
24 hours a day to attend to shipping within the harbour.
Other harbour masters are in receipt of similar allowances
(details supplied). This worker is not paid overtime despite
being required to work outside normal hours and it is only
fair that he should be paid an unsocial hours allowance to
cover him for this additional duty.
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed to carry out specific duties
which were indicated to him and set out clearly in writing at
the time of his employment in 1979. Equally, the rate of pay
that was attached to that job was clearly fixed, and this was
accepted by him at that time. The Commissioners have paid all
National Wage Round and Public Service Agreements which have
applied to his salary and which the Harbour Commissioner's
believe is the adequate rate for the job which is carried out.
2. The Commissioners do not accept that there is any parity
arrangement with the Local Authorities in existence. They do
not believe that it would be at all appropriate to compare
their structures with those of the Local Authorities.
3. In view of the arguments which were being put forward on
behalf of this worker and in support of an adjustment in his
pay claim, the Commissioners did request and received a
detailed job evaluation analysis carried out by the worker
himself. Having carefully examined this document, the
Commissioners were clearly of the view that there had been
no fundamental change in his duties and responsibilities since
his initial appointment. On these grounds alone, the
Commissioners felt fully justified in rejecting the claim for
an improved salary payment.
4. While it is fair to say that the Union was prepared to
consider discussions regarding a change of Captain Flood's
duties, this was not found to be appropriate by the Wicklow
Harbour Commissioners and they had to reject this proposal as
being inappropriate.
5. The question of special allowances has been rejected by
the Labour Court in the past (Recommendation No. LCR11413
refers).
6. The worker is entitled to time off in lieu of overtime.
7. The Commissioners consider that any comparison with
Drogheda port is not relevant because of the greater volume of
traffic and different working methods in that port. Wicklow
port is not out of line with the Arklow situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends that the claimant's salary be increased to a
sum of #11,500 p.a. and implemented in accordance with the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery.
6. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
payment of an unsocial hours allowance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th December, 1987 ------------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman