Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88492 Case Number: LCR12181 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of two foremen general operatives, for an increased differential.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the opinion that plus payments made to those whom
they supervise should be taken into account when determining this
differential. The Court therefore recommends that the foremen
should be paid a rate 7½% above the rate of the highest rated
general worker supervised by them.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88492 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12181
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two foremen general operatives, for an
increased differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Board employs two foremen general operatives both of whom
supervise six general operatives and are paid £170.74 per week.
They are paid a differential of 7½% (£11.91) over the basic rate
for general operative. The rates of pay of the general operatives
are related to the Construction Industry Federation rates, while
the differential paid to the foremen general operative is based on
the differential applicable to chargehands under the national
agreement for craftsmen employed by local authorities.
3. In April, 1988, the Union wrote to the Board requesting a
meeting to discuss the differential and on 17th May, 1988,
outlined the claim as being for an increase in the differential to
15% to bring it into line with the differential paid to foremen in
the construction industry. The claim was rejected by the Board.
A local level meeting was held on 2nd June, 1988, at which no
agreement was reached and on 7th June, 1988, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 8th June, 1988, at which no
progress was made and on 30th June, 1988, the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 16th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 General operatives employed by the Board follow the rates of
pay and plus rates applicable to general operatives under the
National Agreement covering the construction industry. These
rates are not related to the national agreement for craftsmen
and a claim made by the Construction Group of Unions for
parity with these rates was rejected by the Court in 1982
(LCR No. 7549 refers). A rate for foremen's differential is
not contained in the Construction Agreement, and this is
normally negotiated at Company level and varies between 12%
to 25%. There is no agreement between the Union and Board in
respect of the differential to be applied to the foremen
general operatives, and the workers have never accepted the
principle of the 7½% differential.
4.2 The foremen do not qualify for any plus payments when they
are required to perform duties which carry a plus payment.
This reduces the value of their differential over those
general operatives who are paid a plus rate (the highest of
which in the Board is 16p per hour or £6.40 per week) on a
constant basis. The plus rates paid to general operatives
have been increased by 100% since 1982 (details supplied to
the Court) and have further eroded the value of the foremen's
differential.
4.3 These workers are not classified as chargehands and were
appointed as general operative foremen. Under the national
agreement for craftsmen, assistant foremen are paid a
differential of 12% and foremen one of 20%. The craft
chargehand's differential is based on a higher basic wage and
is not eroded by plus payments to the supervised craftsmen.
If the Board insists that this agreement is used to determine
the differential paid to general operative foremen, then they
should agree to pay the foreman differential of 20%. The
workers should not be treated less favourably than other
foremen in the construction and maintenance industry.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5.1 There is no nationally agreed rate for foremen general
operatives in the Construction Industry Federation. The
Board operates a national productivity agreement for
craftsmen which was negotiated by the Local Government Staff
Negotiations Board and applies to craftsmen employed by all
Health Boards. Within the agreement in relation to craftsmen
supervisors, three grades of chargehand or foreman are
specified. The chargehand grade relates to a leading
craftsman with five or six tradesmen of his own trade under
him. The Board has applied the 7½% chargehand differential
to these workers as it considers it to be reasonable as the
foremen general operatives supervise workers of the same
trade. The higher rate of foreman craftsman would apply only
where workers of various crafts are supervised.
5.2 Apart from these considerations, the Board has no funds from
which additional expenditure could be met in the current
year. The Board considers that in all the circumstances a
rate of 7½% over and above the basic rate is reasonable for
the employment of foremen general operatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the opinion that plus payments made to those whom
they supervise should be taken into account when determining this
differential. The Court therefore recommends that the foremen
should be paid a rate 7½% above the rate of the highest rated
general worker supervised by them.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
19th December, 1988 ---------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman