Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86809 Case Number: LCR10877 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. PATRICK'S COLLEGE - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning a claim for rate and grade for a maintenance man.
Recommendation:
5
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86809 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10877
CC86914 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10877
Parties: ST. PATRICK'S TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for rate and grade for a
maintenance man.
Background:
2. The worker concerned is employed in the maintenance section of
St. Patrick's College. His status is that of helper to the
handyman. His duties consist of maintenance work and cleaning of
the paper stores, various workshops and classrooms. His present
rate of pay is #108.52 a week. On the 19th August, 1985 the Union
on behalf of the worker concerned claimed the Construction
Industry Federation (C.I.F.) general operatives rate (#122.30 a
week). This claim was rejected by Management. The Union
reactivated its claim in March, 1986. However following an
examination of the worker's duties by the Union they served a new
claim on the 26th April, 1986 seeking a rate of (#137.04)
applicable to labourer/cleaner in the City of Dublin Vocational
Education Committee and all further increases. Management
rejected this new claim on 12th May, 1986. The claim was referred
to the conciliation service on 26th May, 1986. A conciliation
conference was held on 21st October, 1986 (the earliest available
date suitable to the parties). As no agreement was reached it was
agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th
November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The present rate of pay for the worker concerned is out
of line when compared to other employments given the
range of duties involved. His duties are replacing
broken panes of glass, repairing beds, chairs, doors on
any class of furniture damaged in the College or any
type of maintenance work delegated to him by the
foreman. He also has cleaning duties.
(b) A claim to restore relativity between the catering
staff and a private company was upheld by the Labour
Court in recommendation No. 9915. The College however
rejected the recommendation on grounds of cost as well
as refusing to accept that they should be compared with
a private company. However an offer was made to the
Union to consider a relationship with the City of
Dublin Vocational Educational Committee. This offer is
being considered by the staff concerned at present.
This offer was made subsequent to the claim for the
worker concerned.
Managements arguments:
4. (i) Internal relativities exist for pay within the
maintenance section. Concession of this worker's claim
would have repercussive effects as there is an
agreement with the maintenance staff that they receive
increases in line with increases granted under general
agreements for the C.I.F. The remaining staff in the
College only receive Public Service pay agreements.
(ii) The worker's main function is to assist the carpenter.
He generally works under direct supervision doing
unskilled tasks. The rate of pay he receives is fair
and appropriate to the job being performed.
(iii) It is considered that there is no case for the
establishment of parity with labourer/cleaner in City
of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee. Neither
the worker nor the rest of the maintenance staff in the
College have a parity relationship with workers in the
construction industry. Most pay relationship existing
within the Public Service do not involve parity of pay
- for instance some workers in UCD who have a pay
relationship with Class Aides in City of Dublin
Vocational Educational Committee do not have parity of
pay with the related grade. In this connection it is
relevant to point out that some of the workers in UCD
are paid less than the worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that no good basis exists for the Union's claim for
parity with V.E.C. staff. However, having regard to the nature of
his duties as described to the Court a claim for the basic rate
applicable in the construction industry is warranted and the Court
recommends that the claimants rate be adjusted to that level.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
6th January, 1987.
M.D./J.C.