Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88864 Case Number: LCR12352 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Unions' for the regrading of gardeners.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully studied the very comprehensive
submissions made by the parties in this case. As with past
recommendations the Court does not recommend any change in the
direct relationship of gardeners pay with that of general
operatives. Nevertheless having regard to the results of the
Corporation's own assessment of the work the Court is of the
opinion that some account should be taken of the much more formal
training and apprenticeship requirements necessary to qualify for
the grade. For this reason, and subject to the provisions of the
Programme for National Recovery the Court recommends an adjustment
of 5% in the basic pay scale of each of the gardener grades.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88864 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12352
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions' for the regrading of gardeners.
BACKGROUND:
2. The grading structures and pay scales for gardeners in the
Corporation are as follows (including meal and travel allowances):
Grade 1 supervising gardener: #10,472 - #11,089 (13 points)
Grade 2 supervising gardener: #9,866 - #10,468 (13 points)
Gardener: #9,357 - #9,968 (13 points)
Following a claim by the Unions for regrading the Corporation
carried out an O & M study in 1987. The O & M officer recommended
that grade 1 and 2 scales should be increased but that there
should be no change for the basic gardener grade. The recommended
scales were as follows:
Grade 1: #11,090 - #12,278 (13 points)
Grade 2: #9,914 - #11,086 (13 points)
The Corporation rejected the O & M officer's findings and stated
that for a number of reasons it was not in a position to concede
the claim. The Unions' considered that the O and M Officer's
findings did not go far enough. It is claiming a settlement
analogous to the seventh point of the Assistant Inspectors salary
scale for the grade 1 gardeners, while the grade 11 gardener and
the gardener would be on related rates of pay. The Unions are
seeking officer status and a fixed relationship with the seventh
point of the Assistant Inspector grade in return for which it is
prepared to forego the existing meal and travel payments. The
Unions claim that its proposal would establish a grading system
for gardeners in line with the grading structure in other
sections. Agreement could not be reached on the issues at local
level, and on 30th March, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences took place on 27th June, 1988 and 4th November, 1988.
Agreement was not reached, and on 8th November, 1988 the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 1st
December, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have the educational qualifications
to warrant the grading sought. They cannot be fairly compared
with normal general operative grades because of their
specialist skills and education. The peculiar requirements of
the job are apparent even from the Corporation own job
descriptions (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Union's own Industrial Engineering Officer considered
a range of factors involved in the work such as education and
training initiative, physical and mental demand etc (details
supplied to the Court). The Officer concluded that:
"The gardeners in Dublin Corporation are on a par with
craftsmen, and indeed the Grade 1 gardener would score a
much higher rating than a craftsman."
The Court should note that there are many other people in the
Corporation with more than comparable earnings, but without
equivalent levels of education and training (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The O & M officer who reported on behalf of the
Corporation, suggested point 5 of the inspector rate. The O
and M study was too confined to establish precisely the
correct relationship for the grade, but it did illustrate some
of the special characteristics of these categories. The
Unions' suggestion of the seventh point of the assistant
inspector grade offers the best relationship for the grade 1
gardener. At that point it is the correct relationship both
within the gardening structure, and in relation to the other
categories in the same employment. The workers are prepared
to sacrifice their eating on site and travel allowances
provided they are graded properly, and accorded the correct
status for their work.
4. The Unions recognise the financial constraints of the
present time, and have patiently pursued the claim through the
procedures at all times, and negotiated within the confines of
existing agreements. However the Unions are satisfied that
the workers concerned perform a critically important role and
have a very genuine case for regrading.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Dublin Corporation is in a difficult and worsening
financial situation (details supplied to the Court).
Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the claim the
Corporation is not in a position to concede the pay increase
sought by the workers concerned. Parks section must
necessarily have a lower priority in terms of the allocation
of very scarce resources than such essential services as water
supply, sewage disposal, fire service, refuse collection and
disposal, public lighting, road upkeep and improvement.
2. The gardener grades are already covered under the pay
increases provided for in the 26th round Programme for
National Recovery Agreement. They have benefited over the
years by all the normal cost of living increases applied to
general operative grades in Dublin Corporation and in
addition, it should be noted, by a special pay increase of
#7.50 per week awarded to general operatives from 1st
February, 1982, following a Labour Court recommendation.
3. The pay rates of the grades concerned have been the
subject of exhaustive previous scrutiny, including three
previous referrals to the Labour Court (details supplied to
the Court). No significant changes have taken place in the
duties and responsibilities of the grades since the Labour
Court hearings.
4. In response to continuing pressure from the Unions on
behalf of the gardener grades, the Corporation agreed to an
examination of their jobs by an Organisation and Methods
officer. The Corporation could not accept the O and M
officer's findings, both for reasons of inability to pay and
because the Corporation does not believe that the increases
are warranted. The O and M officer acknowledged that the
supervising gardener duties are similar to those of
supervisory general operative, to whom they are currently
related for pay purposes. The latter have duties which are
significantly more arduous than those of the gardeners, yet
they were unsuccessful in their claim for a wage increase in
1984 (details supplied to the Court).
5. One of the reasons advanced for pay increases is the
education and training of gardeners. This is not a
sustainable argument in view of the similarity of duties with
the corresponding general operative grades, whose training is
achieved on the job but is no less adequate for that reason.
It must also be emphasised that formal education and training
is not a mandatory requirement for recruitment to the various
grades of gardeners (details supplies to the Court).
6. There have been a number of instances where gardeners
without formal education and training have been recruited from
outside and inside the Corporation. In the final analysis it
is the nature of the work itself which determines the
appropriate grading and remuneration. The O & M officer in
his report stated that while the duties of gardeners are
rather similar to those of supervisors within the unskilled
and semi-skilled grading structure, he is of the opinion that
without their education and training, these duties could not
be exercised in a satisfactory manner. The Corporation
disagrees with the O & M officer's conclusions if by education
and training he means formal education and training. If this
were not so the Corporation would not have been satisfied to
recruit gardeners without such formal education and training
as already referred to (details supplied to the Court). The
Corporation feels that satisfactory on-the-job training is at
least of equal value.
7. The claim embodies an attempt to link the pay of grade 1
supervising gardeners with that of assistant inspector in the
Corporation. There is no justification whatsoever of such a
claim. Assistant Inspectors are assigned to certain works
sections of the Corporation where they are closely tied to the
key non-professional supervisory officer grade of inspector.
Even a cursory examination of the Corporation's job structure
illustrates that such Assistant Inspectors fulfill a role
clearly above and beyond the more limited ambit of the basic
Supervisors to whom the gardener grades are broadly related
(details supplied to the Court).
8. There can be no question of conceding the Unions' claim
for officer status for supervisory gardeners grade 1. The
Corporation is already under severe restrictions by the
Government as to the number of officers it may employ. It
should be noted also that officers are not entitled to the
payment of travel time or eating-on-site allowance paid to the
majority of Corporation employees. The Corporation therefore
wishes to reject specifically the Unions' claim for possible
officer status for some of the claimants.
9. There are generous overtime provisions attaching to the
posts of some of the individuals concerned in this claim
(details supplied to the Court). Some of the gardeners
concerned occupy rent free attractive Corporation owned houses
located in the Parks at which they are based. This is a
considerable cash free bonus in itself, estimated to be valued
at #60 per week, and further emphasises the generosity of the
Corporation in paying travel time and eating-on-site allowance
to individuals resident in such houses immediately adjacent to
their work location.
10. The Corporation wishes to draw attention to another
O & M officer's examination carried out recently in Dublin
County Council into a similar claim which resulted in very
different conclusions to those arrived at by the O & M officer
attached to the Corporation. He suggested some scope (in the
region of #5 / #6 per week) for an increase for grade 1
supervising gardeners only, with no increase for grade 11
supervising gardeners (the County Council have no basic
gardener grade). These two grades of supervising gardeners
perform similar functions to the equivalent supervising
gardener grades in the Corporation.
11. The Corporation wishes to draw the particular attention
of the Court to the point made by the Dublin County Council O
& M officer that an important factor in a points job
evaluation system is the level and consequences of decision
making but that grade 1 gardeners, in comparison with other
supervisory grades such as building inspector or general
inspector, would score badly under this heading. The
consequences of indecision or bad decisions by them having
regard to the various activities in which they are involved
would not have the same impact on the public or the Council as
would the building inspector or general inspector.
12. Any concession of the Unions' claim would have serious
repercussive effects amongst grades in not only Dublin County
Council but also in the Office of Public Works and the Botanic
Gardens whose gardener grades have relationships with
corresponding grades in Dublin Corporation. Concession of the
claim would also lead to repercussive claims from semi-skilled
supervisory grades in the Corporation, with whom the gardener
grades are at present related for pay purposes, and in respect
of whom a claim for a pay increase has already been rejected
by the Labour Court. The Court is asked to reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully studied the very comprehensive
submissions made by the parties in this case. As with past
recommendations the Court does not recommend any change in the
direct relationship of gardeners pay with that of general
operatives. Nevertheless having regard to the results of the
Corporation's own assessment of the work the Court is of the
opinion that some account should be taken of the much more formal
training and apprenticeship requirements necessary to qualify for
the grade. For this reason, and subject to the provisions of the
Programme for National Recovery the Court recommends an adjustment
of 5% in the basic pay scale of each of the gardener grades.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
17th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.