Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88633 Case Number: LCR12209 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union that two stores office assistants and one assistant supervisor be regraded as clerical officers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that insufficient evidence was
produced to support concession of the Union's claim. The Court
therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88633 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12209
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LIMERICK CORPORATION
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that two stores office assistants and one
assistant supervisor be regraded as clerical officers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Two of the workers concerned work in stores section, and the
third in housing maintenance. The Union on their behalf claimed
that they should be regraded as clerical officers on the basis of
comparable post holders in other local authorities, and also the
work they are currently engaged on. The Union wants the workers
to be assimilated onto the appropriate point of the clerical
officer scale, and that this be retrospective to December, 1986.
The Corporation was not prepared to concede the claim. It pointed
out that in the current financial climate very few promotional
posts were being filled. In addition the workers did not have the
required educational qualification to be appointed as clerical
officers. Agreement could not be reached at local level, and on
10th June, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 1st September, 1987. No agreement was reached, and on 10th
August, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. (The file was misplaced for a
period of time). A Court hearing took place in Limerick on 7th
December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work being done by the three people concerned is
clerical/administrative. Their job descriptions clearly
demonstrates this fact (details supplied to the Court). It is
also evident from the job description that some of the duties
and responsibilities of the two stores office assistants and
the assistant supervisor are more appropriate to a grade
higher than that of clerical officer. They also exercise a
good deal of discretion in the carrying out of their duties,
particularly when it comes to querying invoices and the cost
of materials. This results in considerable savings to the
Corporation in certain cases when errors are discovered.
2. The workers concerned are regarded as "Servants" and as
such are not part of the established grading structure, and
are deprived of promotional opportunities. This is
discriminatory, particularly since the work that they are
doing is comparable with the work of the clerical officers,
who are part of the established structure.
3. The equivalent jobs in other local authorities are graded
at clerical officer level. This is the case in Limerick
County Council, Clare County Council and Kerry County Council,
three authorities in close proximity to Limerick. Wicklow
County Council and Cork Corporation are two other local
authorities where the comparable posts are graded as clerical
officer posts. There have been instances of stores office
assistants in other local authorities being upgraded to
clerical officer. In fact this happened in Limerick County
Council. All three members involved in this claim are liable
to substitute for the staff officer, who is a grade V, when he
is on annual leave or sick leave.
4. The assistant supervisor grade arose initially from links
with the supervisor/craftsman and this happened without any
detailed look at the work involved. The Union is convinced
that the appropriate grading for the job is clerical officer
because all the work is clerical in nature, something which
the Corporation itself has acknowledged. Embargoes or budget
directives by Government should not be allowed to stand in the
way of resolving an anomolous situation which has arisen for
historical reasons. The Court is asked therefore to
recommend that the three people concerned be assimilated onto
the appropriate point of the clerical officer scale, so as to
ensure no loss of earnings on their part, and that this be
retrospective to December, 1986.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The work performed by the workers concerned is mainly
clerical but is of a narrower and specific nature. Clerical
officers have to carry out a much wider range of duties
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The educational qualifications and particulars of office
for the post of clerical officer have been laid down by the
Minister for the Environment and to be recruited as a clerical
officer, a candidate must meet those specific requirements
(details supplied to the Court). To be appointed otherwise
than in accordance with the specific requirements, the
sanction of the Minister to depart from the regulations laid
down would be required. The standard of education required
for the grades of the workers concerned is merely a good
standard of education (details supplied to the Court).
3. The workers concerned are better remunerated than the
majority of clerical officers in Limerick Corporation though
they are less well qualified and have a narrower range of
duties than clerical officers. The claimant grades are also
better remunerated than many of their colleagues in the stores
of other local authorities even where their colleagues are
already operating computerized stores systems (details
supplied to the Court).
4. New technology has already been embraced by the
Corporation's clerical and administrative staffs without
compensation (details supplied to the Court). To grant
compensation in this instance could have serious repercussive
effects. The Labour Court has, in general, not recommended
payment of compensation for the operation of new technology
where the new development was no more than part of normal
ongoing change.
5. The Corporation would acknowledge that within some local
authorities there are clerical officers performing a broad
range of duties, who are assigned to stores departments.
However, there are also at least five local authorities, with
the stores of comparable or greater turnover than that of the
Corporation's where stores assistants of manual grade are
employed on similar duties to stores office assistant. In
four out of five of these local authorities, the stores staff
concerned are paid considerably less than those in Limerick
Corporation. In the fifth local authority the rate of pay is
similar (details supplied to the Court).
6. The Corporation consider it grossly unreasonable that a group
of employees who have enjoyed higher earnings than 19 out of
26 clerical officers shoud seek a rate of pay comparable to
clerical officers with 13 years' service in their respective
grades though all of this group have considerably less than 13
years' service in their respective grades. Concession of this
claim could lead to repercussive claims from clerical officers and
supervisory grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that insufficient evidence was
produced to support concession of the Union's claim. The Court
therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
10th January, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.