Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88315 Case Number: LCR11905 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WEXFORD CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims on behalf of a worker for (a) pay parity with craftsmen and (b) provision of transport.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not recommend concession of the claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88315 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11905
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WEXFORD CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of a worker for (a) pay parity with craftsmen
and (b) provision of transport.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with Wexford
Corporation as a Waste Water inspector in 1973. This post is
related for pay purposes to the general operative grade and has
traditionally been paid more than general operative but less than
craftsman. His current rate of pay is £163.71 per week.
3. The Union lodged a claim for parity with the craftsman rate on
the basis that the worker is a skilled craftsman and carried out a
wide variety of duties. The claim for the provision of transport
is based on the fact that the worker already uses his own car to
enable him to carry out his duties in an efficient manner.
4. These claims were rejected by the Corporation on the basis
that the worker was not recruited as a craftsman and that for the
most part the worker does not need transport to perform his duties
and on the occasions that transport is required it is provided.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 7th May, 1987. A Conciliation Conference was held
on 12th June, 1987. The Conference was adjourned to allow for an
examination of practice in other towns. In February, 1988, both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on 17th
May, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker has to perform a wide range of duties and has
to cover a wide area in and around Wexford town (details
supplied to the Court). He is also a fully qualified fitter.
He has fifteen years service with the Corporation and his
work has always been of the highest standard. In addition to
his normal duties he regularly covers for holidays and sick
leave as waterworks caretaker. His knowledge, experience and
flexibility are not adequately reflected in his current rate
of pay.
2. In 1978, a claim on behalf of the worker concerned for
parity of rates with his counterparts in other local
authorities was referred to the Labour Court (Labour Court
Recommendation No. 4940 refers). For some unknown reason he
was not present at the Court hearing and the information
presented on his behalf was incomplete. On that occasion the
Court recommended an increase of £3 per week.
3. The claim on behalf of the worker is not excessive
considering that he is underpaid relative to his duties and
responsibilities.
4. Regarding the claim for the provision of transport it
should be noted that the worker has to use a wide variety of
tools and equipment which are necessary for the performance
of his normal duties (details supplied to the Court). As the
worker at present uses his own car it now appears that the
Corporation has seized an opportunity to maximise the
utilisation of the worker's car without incurring any cost
and getting the work done on a fast and efficient basis.
5. If the worker did not use his own car it would result in
the volume of work being drastically reduced considering the
area he has to cover. The worker is not seeking a mileage
allowance but the provision of reasonable transport to enable
him to carry out his duties in a reasonable manner.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker was appointed as waste water inspector on foot
of a publicity advertised competition. The qualifications
and conditions of employment which were then operative have
not changed. These qualifications did not require any craft
qualifications.
2. In 1979 the Court considered a similar claim. At that
time the Court recommended an increase of £3 a week but not
parity with the craftsman rate.
3. The waste water inspector post is related for pay
purposes to the general operative grade and has been
traditionally paid more than the general operative but less
than the craftsman. There has been no change in
circumstances which, in the Corporation's view, would justify
any increase.
4. The worker requests that he be supplied with transport or
be given a transport allowance for the carrying out of his
duties. The Corporation does not require that the worker has
transport and it is not a pre requisite for the carrying out
of his duties. If transport is required for the carrying out
of any function it will be provided by arrangement with the
Borough Engineer. The worker is a member of the part-time
Fire Brigade in Wexford and apparently uses his own transport
in his duties with the Corporation to enable him to attend at
the Fire Station when called out.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman