Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88345 Case Number: LCR11926 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN GAS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of four Gas Control Superintendents for upgrading.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88345 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11926
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN GAS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of four Gas Control Superintendents for
upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The position of Gas Control Superintendent was established
with the conversion of the Company from the manufacture of gas to
the distribution of natural gas. As part of the 1981
comprehensive work agreement a job classification exercise was
undertaken to rationalise different rates of pay and functions in
the Company. The job classification exercise was finalised in
October, 1985, and these workers were classified as Staff Grade 2,
the pay scale for which ranges from £14,101 per annum to £17,710
per annum. The workers are on a 7 day 24 hour 4 shift system.
3. In 1986, the Union served a claim on the Company for the
upgrading of the workers to Staff Grade 4 (£14,598 - 19,176 p.a.),
on the basis that the duties and responsibilities of the position
had increased since the establishment of the grade. Discussions
on the claim were deferred pending conclusion of an agreement on
the introduction of a uniform basic rate for gas controllers whom
these workers supervise, an agreement on this was finalised in
April, 1987. Local level meetings on the present claim were held
in August and October, 1987, at which the Company rejected the
Union's claim. No progress was possible and the matter was
referred on 22nd December, 1987, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 23rd
February, 1988, and the matter was later referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 9th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the Job Classification which established
this grade, the Company had only partly completed the Natural
Gas Conversion Programme and the Gas Control Centre was only
partly operative. Therefore, the Company was not in a
position to accurately assess what was the appropriate grade
for the workers concerned and the job description (details
supplied to the Court) which originally applied to the
position before the inclusion of extra duties was found to be
inadequate by the workers.
2. In April, 1986, the Company was taken into receivership,
following which a Viability Agreement was negotiated between
the Union and the Receiver in September, 1986. In this
agreement (details supplied to the Court) a small range of
extra duties were to be given to these workers. However in
practice the extra responsibilities bear no relation to the
duties described in the Viability Agreement and the
additional responsibilities have obliged these workers to
learn and implement duties associated with clerical grades
and staff officers up to Grade IV level (details supplied to
the Court).
3. The pay or salary associated with the various grades must
be related to the level of duties and responsibilities in
those positions. These workers are now performing a job
which in terms of duties and responsibilities bears no
comparison to the job they were appointed to do. The
position is now a combination of their own duties plus those
of clerical staff in consumer service and distribution and
most importantly the two Staff Officer Grade 4's who in
normal working hours deal with public reported escapes. Gas
escapes are the most sensitive area in the Company and
outside normal working hours it is these workers who have
responsibility for dealing with such situations. The
position should in the circumstances be upgraded to Staff
Grade 4.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. These workers on taking up their present positions
clearly understood that training would be required. The
Company never accepted that this training would merit a
regrading. The job Classification Agreement was accepted by
all unions in October, 1985, and these workers accepted that
the function was appropriate to Staff Grade 2.
2. In October, 1986, the position had radically changed for
all employees of the Company. Over 500 redundancies have
taken place and a major renegotiation of work practices has
been put into effect. The Viability Agreement lists in full
the changes for all categories of workers. No other section
or category of worker has been compensated for changes in
work practices although the changes required accepting
additional responsibilities or improved productivity or
financial losses or withdrawal of benefits, etc. Any
concession to these workers for regrading in respect of
additional duties which were clearly identified in the
Viability Agreement will result in repercussive claims.
3. These workers operate on a continuous shift basis which
pays a shift premium of 44.79% on top of their basic rate,
for working a 40 hour week. The added responsibilities
undertaken by these workers occur mainly outside normal
working hours and attract the high shift premium. The
Company does not have the money to meet cost increasing
claims and even if the Company saw merit in the claim, which
it does not, the terms of the Plan for National Recovery
would prevent concession of the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman