Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8738 Case Number: LCR11093 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BALLINA UDC - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of a worker employed as a labourer in the waste water treatment plant for regrading to sewerage caretaker grade iv.
Recommendation:
5. The Court in the light of the submissions made whilst
accepting that the worker concerned performs the duties required
of him very satisfactorily, does not recommend concession of his
claim which clearly would be contrary to the grading arrangements
envisaged and provided for in the Local Government Rationalisation
Scheme.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87038 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11093
CC861624 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11093
PARTIES: BALLINA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker employed as a labourer in the
waste water treatment plant for regrading to sewerage caretaker
grade iv.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was first employed by the Council in
August, 1983 and was assigned to general labouring duties within
the administrative area. In November, 1983 he was transferred to
the waste water treatment plant to work under the general
supervision of the caretaker. This plant commenced operation in
October, 1983 to service the needs of Ballina. In 1983 a national
rationalisation agreement for waterworks and sewerage caretakers
was implemented which resulted in a 5 tier grading structure. The
caretaker at the plant in Ballina is at Grade V level. (Details
of conditions of employment supplied to the Court). Apart from a
technician who carries out sophisticated tests at the plant 2.50
days a week, the caretaker and the worker concerned are the only
people employed there. On any day that the caretaker is absent
and the worker deputises for him, he is paid at the caretaker's
rate of pay for that day. The Union lodged a claim with the
Council for the regrading of the worker concerned to caretaker
grade iv. This claim was rejected by the Council and the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
7th October, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 3rd
December, 1986 and as no agreement could be reached the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing was held in Castlebar on 11th March, 1987 a
date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The duties performed by the worker concerned (details
supplied to the Court) are not proper to a labourer.
They involve a skill for which the worker had to be
suitably educated and trained.
(b) The system has operated efficiently and effectively
since 1984 without any complaints from the Council.
Apart from mannual breakdowns the system and schedule
have been adhered to with occasional applause from the
Council supervisors.
(c) The Council have deployed other workers on occasion to
perform general maintenance duties at the plant from
time to time. The worker concerned is not required to
carry out these duties.
(d) The Council have already conceded that the worker
concerned be paid at the caretaker's rate of pay for
all time spent in the plant in his (the caretaker's)
absence with the exception of two hours every morning.
The worker carries out tests which should be done by
the caretaker. However, because the caretaker is
required to work 40 hours over a 7 day week, he is not
on duty at these times. The Union contend that the
worker should be paid at the caretaker's rate of pay
for these hours.
Council's arguments:
4. (i) The worker concerned was recruited as a labourer and
continues to be employed as such. He was assigned to
the plant in 1983 as a labourer to assist the
caretaker and his duties are proper to that grade.
(ii) The caretaker is required to provide 7 day week cover
over a 40 hour week in order to carry out the
operation and maintenance of the plant and can be
called out at any time in the event of an emergency.
The worker concerned has no such responsibilities.
(iii) There are no general operatives paid at the caretaker
rate of pay in any other waterworks/sewerage schemes
operated by any other local authority (details
supplied to the Court).
(iv) To accede to the Union's claim would lead to the
employment at the Ballina plant of a sewerage
caretaker at Grade V level, a sewerage caretaker at
Grade IV level and a technician for 2.50 days per week.
The Council is fully satisfied that such a level of
staffing would be absurd and completely wasteful of
scarce financial resources apart altogether from the
repercussive claims that would most likely result
from such an arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in the light of the submissions made whilst
accepting that the worker concerned performs the duties required
of him very satisfactorily, does not recommend concession of his
claim which clearly would be contrary to the grading arrangements
envisaged and provided for in the Local Government Rationalisation
Scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___________________
1st________May,____1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.