Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88225 Case Number: LCR11819 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim for the restoration of a pay differential.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the grounds for the previous
differentials between the claimants and the other storemen were
removed by the assignment of additional duties to the storemen in
the Roads Department under the Productivity Agreement.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the claimants should accept
management's offer made at Conciliation on 25th February, 1988.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88225 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11819
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the restoration of a pay differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns nine storemen employed in the General
Purposes, Housing and Sanitary Services Sections of Dublin County
Council. In 1985 storemen in the Roads Section were granted a
wage increase as a result of a Labour Court investigation of a
claim for the increase which had been granted to gangers in 1982
(Labour Court Recommendation No. 9490 refers).
3. The Union is claiming that a differential which the workers
had over the storemen in Roads Section was eroded following the
implementation of LCR 9490 and should now be restored by the
application to the workers of the ganger's increase updated to
January, 1988. The claim which was lodged in February, 1987 was
rejected by the Council. Details of the current wage scales and
the scale now being claimed are in Appendix 1.
4. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
17th August, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held
on 19th October, 1987 and 25th February, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. However the Council offered to give favourable
consideration to a proposal to apply the road storeman's pay scale
to all storemen, subject to the terms of clause 3.2 of the 1987
Public Service Pay Agreement, and that the duties, including
productivity, of the road storemen would apply to all storemen.
This was unacceptable to the Union. On 21st March, 1988 the case
was referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 11th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Since the inception of the grade of storeman in the three
areas concerned the workers have always enjoyed a higher
rate of pay than the storemen employed in the roads
section. This was because the Council recognised that
their work was of a more onerous nature.
5. 2. The application of the ganger's increase to the roads
storemen eroded the differential which the workers enjoyed
up to then e.g.
Housing/Sanitary Services
Roads /General Purposes.
1 January 1985 123.77-136.65 135.35 - 145.24
1 January 1988 156.86-167.89 154.62 - 165.01
Not only has the differential been eroded but the roads
storemen have now gone ahead of the storemen who are the
subject of the claim.
3. The Council's argument that the claim could not be
conceded as no major change had taken place in the duties
and responsibilities of the post applies equally to the
roads storemen.
4. The Council has always accepted that the job of a storeman
in the three areas concerned is more onerous than that of
a roads storeman. Nothing has altered this situation.
5. The duties of roads storeman were defined for the first
time as a result of LCR 9490. The only new items were
already acceptable to the workers concerned. In additions
they have been co-operative on an ongoing basis with the
Council for the past two years on the introduction of new
systems which have increased productivity and effected
savings to the Council.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The increase granted to road storemen was a follow-on to
the increase granted to gangers which was described by the
Court and accepted by the Union as being a 'unique' case.
2. The Court was assured, in the course of the hearing on the
road storemen's claim, that concession of the claim would
not give rise to repercussive claims.
3. There has not been any significant change in the duties
and responsibilities of storemen to warrant a special
increase.
4. The Council, as the Union is aware, is in extremely
serious financial difficulties following the reduction of
the rates support grant from £42.2m in 1985 to £26.2m in
1988.