Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87721 Case Number: LCR11518 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SLIGO CORPORATION - and - LGPSU |
Claim on behalf of one worker for retrospective application of a salary scale.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the circumstances outlined in the submissions
made by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that no good
reason exists to differentiate between the telephonists and
recommends that the Corporation telephonist be granted the same
terms as those already conceded by the County Council.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87721 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11518
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11518
Parties: SLIGO CORPORATION
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker for retrospective application of
a salary scale.
Background:
2. Sligo Corporation and Sligo County Council both have a
receptionist/telephonist. The rate of pay of the County Council
telephonist was in the past directly linked to the rates in
Telecom Eireann with the Corporation telephonist following
automatically. In 1985 the rates had fallen out of line and the
Union lodged a claim on behalf of both workers with both
employers to bring them back in line. Discussions took place with
the City and County Manager and on 2nd May, 1986 the County
Council offered restoration of the differential subject to Clause
3.3 of the Public Service Pay Agreement. Alternatively the scales
for blind telephonists in the civil service were offered with
effect from 1st October, 1983. This latter offer was accepted by
the Union and was implemented by the County Council. However, the
worker in the Corporation was not made this same offer until 17th
July at which point it was accepted. On 5th December, 1986 the
Union was informed that the Department of the Environment had only
sanctioned payment of the scale offered to the worker in the
Corporation subject to Clause 3.3 of the Public Service Agreement
which provides for payment of one third of the increase from 1st
December, 1987, one third from 1st December, 1988 and the balance
from 1st July, 1989. This was unacceptable to the Union. As no
agreement could be reached at local level the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No progress was
made at a conciliation conference held on 24th September, 1987 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held in Sligo on 21st October,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The special merit of the claim was recognised by both
the Department of the Environment and the County
Council when they put forward an alternative proposal
to the Union's claim which would not require the
application of Clause 3.3. given the traditional pay
relationship between the two workers and the fact that
the Union processed both claims together it is grossly
unjust to make such a differentiation as is now being
offered.
(ii) This is a very minor claim involving one worker
employed by the Corporation. The comparison which is
being made is with another worker under the
jurisdiction of the same Manager. During discussions
on this claim management never differentiated between
the two workers and, in fact, agreed with the Union
that they both should be treated the same. The Union
considers that the Department is being petty in not
sanctioning this claim because of a oversight by
management in their communication with the Department.
(iii) The worker concerned is on a lower rate of pay than
Blind Telephonists in either the Civil Service or Bord
Telecom. Her colleague in the County Council has had
the benefit of the increase from around July of 1986
with retrospection back to October, 1983. The offer of
similar treatment for the worker concerned was a
compromise suggested by the Department on the original
claim but to now attempt to apply Clause 3.3 to that
offer after having received acceptance is in extremely
bad faith.
(iv) The offer as originally made would still leave the
worker slightly worse off than her counterparts in many
other local authorities. Both the County Manager and
the Union acted in good faith in conducting
negotiations on behalf of both employees and there was
never any intention by either party to differentiate
between them.
Corporation's arguments:
4. (a) The rate of pay which applies to certain grades of
blind telephonist in the Civil Service was offered to
the worker concerned subject to the sanction of the
Minister for the Environment. The Corporation sought
sanction for the application of this rate
retrospectively to 7th March, 1983. The rate was
sanctioned subject to Clause 3.3. of the Public Service
Agreement.
(b) The Corporation is prepared to concede the claim but it
is bound by the decision of the Minister of the
Environment.
(c) The Corporation acknowledges that there may have been a
misunderstanding on both sides as to who was involved
when the claims were being negotiated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the circumstances outlined in the submissions
made by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that no good
reason exists to differentiate between the telephonists and
recommends that the Corporation telephonist be granted the same
terms as those already conceded by the County Council.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
12th November, 1987 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman