Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87335 Case Number: LCR11292 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOUGHLINSTOWN LEISURE CENTRE - and - LGPSU |
Claim, on behalf of one receptionist for application of the local authority grade 2 salary scale, with retrospection.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not accept that there are sufficient grounds to
warrant any change in the method by which the salary of the
claimant is presently implemented and, therefore, does not
recommend concession of the claim as made.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87335 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11292
CC87401 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11292
PARTIES: LOUGHLINSTOWN LEISURE CENTRE
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of one receptionist for application of the
local authority grade 2 salary scale, with retrospection.
Background:
2. Loughlinstown Leisure Centre was built between 1980 and 1983,
largely funded by Dun Laoghaire Corporation. The Centre is run as
a non-profit making organisation by a Board of Management
consisting of not more than seventeen members. This is comprised
of seven councillors from Dun Laoghaire Borough Council, two
persons from the community, one senior corporation official and
seven members with specialities related to particular
requirements. The Centre provides sports facilities and a health
studio and there are plans for its expansion. Seven full-time
permanent staff are employed and approximately twelve part-time
and temporary staff. The worker concerned was employed in
September, 1983, as a receptionist and her starting salary was
#5,000 p.a. subject to national wage agreements and yearly
reviews. Her present salary is #6,138. In August, 1986, the
Union sought application of the local authority salary scale,
grade 2, to this post. No agreement was reached at local level,
management contending that "any adjustment in the remuneration
paid to any employee of the Centre is made by the Board of
Management on the merits of the situation". The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 4th
March, 1987, and a conciliation conference took place on 22nd
April, 1987. No agreement was reached, however, and the matter
was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing
took place on 4th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Centre is funded and controlled by Dun Laoghaire
Corporation and the Union therefore considers it
appropriate that the receptionist should be paid on
the same basis as an equivalent post in the
Corporation.
(ii) The Manager of the Centre was appointed by the
Corporation in September, 1981, at the same salary
level as a section officer in Dun Laoghaire
Corporation and his salary has been revised in line
with that scale. The assistant managers were
appointed at a salary scale equivalent to the
assistant section officer in the Corporation.
(iii) In March, 1985, the manager told the staff that he was
studying local authority scales in relation to the
review of salaries. In July, 1985, the first review
took place and the receptionist was placed on #5,785
which was the third point of the grade 2 scale, pre
the 24th pay round. In July, 1986, another review
took place and the receptionist was placed on #6,138
which was the third point of the grade 2 scale at the
end of the 24th pay round. The 25th round has not yet
been applied. The manager, in correspondence, stated
that the receptionist scale is not an incremental one.
However, in reviewing the scale, he awarded the third
point of the scale following two years employment.
This is the method by which local authority scales are
reviewed.
(iv) The Union is seeking that the receptionist be placed
on the grade 2 scale with effect from her date of
appointment, that she be paid the 23rd/24th and 25th
round increases from the effective dates, that her
incremental date be the anniversary of her
commencement date, and that in future, her pay be
revised exactly in line with the grade 2 in Dun
Laoghaire Corporation. (Details of wage scales were
supplied to the Court, the total amount claimed being
#1,195.8, to date).
Management's arguments:
4. (a) No valid comparison can be made in respect of work
content between the position of clerk/typist in a
local authority and that of receptionist in a sports
complex. Conditions and qualifications for these
positions are different.
(b) The Centre is a self-financing organisation subject to
market forces, similar to other private organisations.
Therefore it is essential that it maintain its
independence to control costs and to negotiate subject
to prevailing financial circumstances. This is not so
in the case of local authorities.
(c) The Board of Management has an official licence to
operate the Centre independently from the local
authority. The terms and conditions of operation are
laid down in this licence. If any link was
established between the staff employed by the Centre
and the local authority, then the licence itself would
be brought into question. This could have serious
implications for this organisation and similar
organisations elsewhere.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not accept that there are sufficient grounds to
warrant any change in the method by which the salary of the
claimant is presently implemented and, therefore, does not
recommend concession of the claim as made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman