Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86825 Case Number: LCR10900 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NAVAN U.D.C. - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of a waterworks inspector for regrading.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not find grounds which would warrant the
re-categorization of this post and accordingly it does not
recommend concession of the union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86825 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10900
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10900
PARTIES: NAVAN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a waterworks inspector for regrading.
Background:
2. Traditionally each local authority determined the rate of pay
for water and sewerage caretakers. With effect from 7th March,
1981, agreement was reached between the Local Government Staff
Negotiations Board and the unions representing the grade for a
five tier structure depending on the content of the job. The
application of this structure in each county was decided at local
level negotiations, with recourse to appeal to a national
monitoring committee if necessary. Arising from these
negotiations the worker concerned was placed on grade IV with
effect from 1st January, 1984. His current rate of pay is #164.49
which is the maximum point on grade IV.
3. The Union considered inappropriate the inclusion of a water
inspector in the grading structure for caretakers and subsequently
served a claim on the Council to have the worker re-graded to the
grade of foreman craftsman under the national wage structure for
craftsmen. This claim was rejected by the Council and as no
agreement could be reached at local level the matter was referred,
on 5th November, 1985, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. At a conciliation conference, held on 18th December, 1985,
the Union sought agreement on the appointment of a technical
assessor to determine the validity of its claim. No agreement was
reached however, and it was referred back to local negotiations.
At a resumed conference on 11th February, 1986, no further
progress was reported and the conference again adjourned for the
parties to consider a proposal which emanated at that conference
which provided that the worker would be given grade V status of
the water and sewerage caretaker grading structure on the
undertaking that he would accept responsibility for an additional
waterworks, subject to the appointment of an assistant. However,
by letter of 20th February, 1986, the proposal was rejected by the
Council and subsequently the parties (the Union on 13th October,
1986, and the Council on 21st October, 1986) referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 25th November, 1986, in Navan.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) While he does not supervise the work of caretakers the
duties of the worker concerned (details supplied to
the Court) compare favourably with those of the water
inspector/overseer in Meath County Council. In the
case of that worker the Labour Court, in
Recommendation No. 9771, recommended that the
foreman craftsman's rate be applied to him. Also,
arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. 5462
similar workers in Kildare County Council are
remunerated by reference to the scale applicable to
the assistant foreman craftsmen.
(ii) The worker is responsible for the distribution of a
supply to about 22,000 people, extending throughout
Navan and its environs. This involves about 2,000,000
gallons per day using a distribution system which is
very old, extending back to 1893. He is responsible
in effect for the whole mid-Meath scheme. The only
other scheme servicing a population approaching 20,000
would be the east Meath scheme and there are five
caretakers employed on that scheme.
(iii) In Navan Urban area alone, there are 4,100 premises.
An inspector in Dublin County Council would service an
area ranging about this number of premises but his pay
structure would extend from a minimum of #159.19 per
week to a maximum of #188.01 per week (end of 24th
round).
(iv) The worker did not appeal his grading to the national
monitoring committee on the basis that to do so would
be to concede the principle that he should be graded
within the water and sewerage structure, in which the
Union contends he should not be included.
(v) The complex technicalities of this dispute can best be
resolved by the involvement of a competent assessor to
determine an appropriate rate in the context of the
structures involved (i.e. craft supervisor and
waterworks caretaker). This is the last worker in
County Meath to have his grade determined as all the
other workers have been graded.
Council's arguments:
5. (a) The worker failed to exercise his right of appeal when
the water and sewerage caretakers' grading structure
was introduced and by implication accepted the grade
IV offered by the Council.
(b) The worker's present duties are almost the same in
terms of volume and responsibility for the past six
years and there are no grounds for an improvement in
remuneration.
(c) The worker's duties are totally related to the normal
duties of a water and sewerage caretaker. There is no
justification for a claim for remuneration outside the
grading structure for water and sewerage caretakers.
(d) The worker is not a craftsman for the purposes of the
local authority wage structure and a claim for the
foreman rate for craftsmen is not sustainable.
(e) Of the 22 water and sewerage caretakers in County
Meath three exercised their right of appeal and one
was successful. This supports the view that the
Council implemented the grading structure fairly both
in a local and national context and is satisfied that
the worker is properly graded.
(f) The concession of any re-grading to the worker will
create an anomaly in the total grading structure for
water and sewerage caretakers, which has already been
agreed with the Union and which has been supported by
the appeals monitoring committee, and would lead to
repercussive claims from other caretakers for
restoration of relativities.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not find grounds which would warrant the
re-categorization of this post and accordingly it does not
recommend concession of the union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
23rd December, 1986 ___________________________
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman