Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87139 Case Number: LCR11315 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NIHE - and - ASTMS |
Claim, on behalf of five laboratory attendants, for parity of pay with porter attendants and ground staff.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the clearly established relationship
between laboratory attendants in this case and similar workers in
U.C.D. the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87139 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11315
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11315
Parties: NIHE LIMERICK
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFF
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of five laboratory attendants, for parity of
pay with porter attendants and ground staff.
Background:
2. In early 1986 the Union lodged a claim, on behalf of
laboratory attendants for parity with porter attendants and ground
staff employed at the Institute. At that time the laboratory
attendants were on a seven point salary scale ranging from #120.19
to #135.10 per week while the porter attendants were on a thirteen
point salary scale ranging from #139.17 to #149.26 per week.
These salary scales were not inclusive of the 25th wage round.
The Institute rejected the claim for parity.
3. No agreement was reached at local level negotiations and on
30th December, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 12th February, 1987, earlier dates were unsuitable to one or
other of the parties. However no agreement was reached and on
23rd February, 1987 the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 9th June, 1987 an earlier date was unsuitable to one or other
of the parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Government policy on public service pay originated from
a desire to keep public service spending to the
minimum, nevertheless the cost to the Institute of
concession of this claim would be minimal. The
advantages both to the Institute and members concerned
would be substantial. It would afford the individuals
concerned a career structure, which presently does not
exist. From the Institute's view point, there would be
greater flexibility and integration from the laboratory
attendants with other groups within the college.
(ii) There is no justice in keeping the laboratory
attendants inside their present confines, given that
the workers in question have not been given recognition
for increased duties and responsibilities (with the
expansion of the Institute), together with the fact
that the Institute has a large number of highly paid
grades and have an income independent of the
Government.
(iii) The workers concerned (more than any other group) have
suffered a severe reduction of living standards in
recent years, arising from the fact that increases
under public service pay agreements have not kept pace
with inflation, together with the fact that workers
have had to bear increased costs in relation to their
employment.
(iv) The workers earnings are well below the figures for
average industrial earnings. They have no opportunity
to enhance their earnings.
(v) The laboratory attendants work compares favourably with
that of the porter attendants and in many instances the
work overlaps. The workers provide a more varied and
integrated service than the porters but they receive
substantially less in remuneration.
(vi) The Institute acknowledges and encourages career
advancement and development but the laboratory
attendants have no career structure upwards, therefore,
they are not afforded any promotional opportunities and
their earning power is limited.
(vii) The workers came into the service of the Institute with
a wide variety of skills.
Institute's arguments:
5. (a) The workers concerned have a pay relationship with
laboratory attendants at U.C.D. arising from an
assessor's report and Labour Court Recommendation No.
5396 of October, 1979. In 1981 this link was confirmed
with the conclusion of a flexibility agreement for
laboratory attendants at N.I.H.E. similar to that
agreed with laboratory attendants at U.C.D. Through
their relationship with the U.C.D. workers the
claimants have received more favourable pay increases
under the 24th and 25th Rounds than those paid to most
employees of the Institute. They also stand to benefit
from any special increases which the U.C.D. workers may
be granted in the future on foot of a recently-established
relationship with class aides in the City of Dublin
V.E.C.
(b) The duties and responsibilities of the porter
attendants are different from those of the laboratory
attendants They have a higher level of contact with
the public.
(c) It is not accepted that the workers have any case for
establishment of a pay relationship with
porter attendants or for the breaking of the existing
relationship with U.C.D. workers. The personal
qualifications of a small number of incumbents is not
justification for concession of the claim.
(d) Concession of this claim could have repercussive
effects for other grades throughout the third-level
education sector.
(e) In his recent Budget speech the Minister for Finance
said that spending on public services would have to be
curtailed and he announced measures affecting various
sections of the community. He reiterated the
Government's serious concern at the cost of the public
service and the problem of financing that cost and
stated that there should be no further special
increases or improvements in conditions beyond those
already approved and provided for. Given these severe
financial constraints, and in view of the other
considerations mentioned in this submission it is
submitted that it would be inappropriate to concede the
claim now made.