Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86890 Case Number: LCR11010 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GALWAY CO. CO. - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of one worker employed as a waterworks' caretaker for the application of the Craftsmen's pay scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the history of negotiations of
this claim and the implementation of the national scheme of job
grading, considers that the claimant's grading is fair and does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86890 THE LABOUR COURT
CC861079 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11010
PARTIES: GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker employed as a waterworks'
caretaker for the application of the Craftsmen's pay scale.
Background:
2. In 1981 a national agreement was reached to rationalise the
pay rates of Local Authority General Worker Grades. Arising from
this a national agreement was reached in 1983 for a 5 tier grading
structure for waterworks caretakers. Twenty two of the twenty
four waterworks' caretakers in the Council were assimilated onto
the scale and the remaining two appealed their grading to an
Appeals Committee. The worker concerned in this claim was one of
those workers. The Committee recommended he should retain his
rate (which was greater than the Grade II maximum applicable to
the Kilkerrin/Moylough Scheme) on a personal basis. The Union is
claiming that he be paid the maintenance craftsman rate as per an
agreement of July, 1970. The Council rejected the claim. As no
agreement could be reached at local level the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 25th June,
1986. No basis for a settlement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 10th September, 1986, and on 12th
November, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation into the
dispute was held on 10th December, 1986, in Galway.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker is covered by an agreement arrived at in
July, 1970 and confirmed in a letter from the then
county manager dated 30th July, 1970. This brought
the rate of pay of waterworks' caretakers to that of
maintenance craftsmen less 7p per hour (details
supplied to the Court). This agreement was introduced
and subsequently discontinued by the Council.
(ii) The Council contends that rationalisation negotiations
superceded any local arrangements, yet waterworks'
caretakers employed by Kerry County Council maintained
their rate after the rationalisation and that rate is
the maintenance craftsman rate.
(iii) It is reasonable to expect that agreements freely
entered into should be honoured by the Council.
County Council's arguments:
4. (a) The once-off arrangement in 1970 to link the rate of
pay of waterworks' caretakers to that of maintenance
craftsmen has never been maintained (details supplied
to the Court). The rate of pay of the worker here
concerned has been related to that of general
operatives since 1978.
(b) All other waterworks' caretakers have accepted their
assimilation into the revised grading structure.
(c) The worker appealed his grading to the National
Appeals Committee set up to deal with individual
grievances arising from assimilation to the new 5 tier
structure. The Committee decided that the worker
should hold his personal rate, which was approximately
#2 above the maximum point of the Grade II scale at
that time. The Committee's decision was implemented
by the Council and this differential has been
maintained.
(d) Concession of this claim could have serious
repercussions for the Council and other local
authorities. Such claims would seriously undermine
the Rationalisation Agreement for Waterworks and
Sewerage Caretakers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the history of negotiations of
this claim and the implementation of the national scheme of job
grading, considers that the claimant's grading is fair and does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th February, 1987 John M. Horgan
R.B./P.W. Chairman