Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88198 Case Number: LCR11823 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim by the Union of behalf of 7 Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists for parity of entry point on salary scale as applicable in Local Authorities.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court, in light of the terms of the agreement between the Union
and the Harbour Commissioners, is of the opinion that while parity
of scales for pay purposes was accepted, the application of such
scales must relate to the organisational requirements of the
Commissioners, which in this case are different from Local
Authorities generally. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88198 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11823
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union of behalf of 7 Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists
for parity of entry point on salary scale as applicable in Local
Authorities.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since 1979, salary scales in the Harbour Commissioners for
Clerk-Typist/Shorthand-Typists are related by agreement to those
in Local Authorities. In February, 1987, the Union lodged a claim
that, in recognition of the greater skill requirement of
shorthand, a higher point of entry i.e. the 4th point on the
salary scale, as per Circular E.L. 7/75 should apply to the
Commissioners' Clerk-Typist/Shorthand-Typist staff, as it did to
Local Authority staff performing these duties. The Commissioner's
indicated that they did not differentiate between the skills of
Clerk-Typist and Shorthand-Typist, as they regarded equally the
skill requirement of each category. The Union maintained that
re-alignment of salary scales in 1979, established full parity,
including point of entry, however, the Commissioners' rejected
this. On 25th January, 1988, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. As no settlement was
achieved at a conciliation conference held on 24th February, 1988,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 9th March, 1988,
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 29th March, 1988, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim is based on the parity link-up of the
1979 agreement for Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists in Local
Authorities. The application of the 4th point to
Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists with shorthand skills is to be
found in the Department of Local Government Circular E.L. 7/75
(details provided to the Court). The Local Authority
principle is being sought for Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists
in the Commissioners.
2. This principle was accepted by the Union as can be seen by
the expressed declaration of the word 'parity' to the Local
Authority grade in the 1979 agreement.
3. 3. The present Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists employed by
the Commissioners have shorthand skills, but more importantly,
would not meet the minimum qualifications laid down by the
Commissioners without the skill. The Commissioners have
stated that the shorthand skills are rarely required, however,
that is not the fault of the Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists.
4. The Commissioners have argued that the relationship with
Local Authorities was only for general pay movements. The
Union contends that the application of the scale and the
related method as apply in Local Authorities is what parity
means. The word 'parity' means in spirit and intent in terms
of day to day application. The Union seeks that this parity
be applied to the Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists from their
date of entry, (the 1st being 30th November, 1984).
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Commissioners reject the claim on the basis that the
agreed relativity referred to the salary scale of the relevant
Local Authority grade only and that parity never existed in
relation to conditions of employment, such as hours, holidays,
P.R.S.I. and general conditions etc.... and also not to entry
requirements, which Local Authorities felt appropriate to
themselves.
2. The Commissioners see no basis for an enhanced payment to
a basic recruitment category, with moderate abilities,
particularly in an organisation where shorthand is little used
and where the use of dictating machines has the effect of
making the skill of shorthand less onerous if not redundant.
3. The Union submission that the application of the fourth
point of entry for Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists is provided
for under the 1979 Agreement is without basis. The 1979
Agreement, in its clause relating to Assistant Administrative
Officers (paragraph 4.A.4), specifically stated that the
salary scale for this grade would be age-related, as per Local
Authority grade IV scale. No such stipulation is provided in
respect of the Clerk-Typist/Shorthand-Typist grade in the
Agreement (paragraph 4.A.1), despite the fact that Circular
E.L. 7/75 sanctioning the application of entry points for
grade II in the Local Authority structure, was issued in 1975.
Thus, it is the Commissioners' view that the Union, with the
clear knowledge of the 1975 Departmental regulation,
negotiated and agreed the age -related application
specifically for the Assistant Administrative Officer grade
and did do so in respect of the Clerk-Typist/Shorthand-Typist
grade.
4. 4. Concession of the claim would also have a knock-on effect
on the promotional grade immediately above it for Senior
Clerk-Typists/Shorthand-Typists, whose entry point on
promotion would have to be evaluated in the light of a scale
with fewer increments. The claim is also injudicious when the
Commissioners are currently engaged in rationalisation because
of cost uncompetitiveness which will result in job-wide
redundancies.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court, in light of the terms of the agreement between the Union
and the Harbour Commissioners, is of the opinion that while parity
of scales for pay purposes was accepted, the application of such
scales must relate to the organisational requirements of the
Commissioners, which in this case are different from Local
Authorities generally. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
27th April, 1988 Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.