Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90104 Case Number: LCR12789 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the re-grading of gardeners.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties. Taking account of the minimum entrance educational
qualifications required for apprentice gardeners, the length and
content of the training period, the opinion of the training
authority providing the courses, and the necessity for the
apprentice to obtain the qualifying certificate before appointment
as a gardener by the Corporation the Court has come to the
conclusion that gardeners so qualified should be graded as
craftsmen.
The Court therefore recommends that those gardeners who have
obtained the above qualifications and who have completed four
years service with the Corporation should be granted craft status
and be appointed to the point on the craft scale approprite to
their service, the difference in salary so arising to be
eliminated in phases in accordance with the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery.
As to the further elements in the Unions claim, the present
grading structure of gardeners, supervisory gardeners grade II and
supervisory gardeners grade 1 is in the view of the Court entirely
inappropriate for the new craft structure which would arise if
both parties accept the first part of the Courts recommendation as
set out above.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claim that Supervisory Gardeners Grade II be graded as assistant
craft foreman, or Supervisory Gardeners Grade 1 be graded as craft
foreman. However, it does recommend that supervisory appointments
be made using the same criteria which apply to the appointment of
assistant foreman and foreman in local authority craft grades.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90104 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-grading of gardeners.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are three gardener grades in the Corporation the pay
rates of which are related to supervisory general operative
grades. The grades, salary scales (including meal and travel
allowances) and numbers in the grades are as follows:
Grade Salary Scale No.
Supervising Gardener, Grade I #10,472-#11,089 30
Supervising Gardener, Grade II # 9,866-#10,468 14
Gardener # 9,357-# 9,968 5
3. In 1986 the Union made a claim for regrading of the gardeners,
as a result of which the Corporation carried out an O & M study,
which was completed in 1987. The O & M Officer recommended that
there should be no change in the gardener salary scale, but that
the grade I and grade II scales should be increased as follows:-
Supervising Gardener, Grade I #11,090-#12,278 (13 points).
Supervising Gardener, Grade II # 9,914-#11,086 (13 points).
4. 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 Union's position was that the O & M
Officer's findings were not sufficient. The Union claimed that
the supervising gardener, Grade I scale should correspond to the
seventh point of the Assistant Inspector's salary scale, together
with officer status, and that related rates of pay should apply to
the grade II and gardener scales. In return for this the Union
would be prepared to accept the elimination of the existing meal
and travel payments. Agreement could not be reached on the matter
and it was subsequently the subject of a Labour Court hearing on
1st December, 1988. The Court's recommendation was as follows:-
"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."
(L.C.R. No. 12352 of 17th April, 1989 refers).
Following the issue of this recommendation, further conciliation
conferences were held on 14th and 28th November, 1989. The
Union's position was that the gardeners pay relationship with
general operatives was inappropriate given their general level of
education, training and skills and that it now had relevant
information which had not previously been available. This
information was a statement from Teagasc to the effect that the
Higher Certificate in Amenity Horticulture is regarded as being at
least equivalent to a conventional apprenticeship training
programme. The Corporation's position was that it was prepared to
seek sanction to implement the terms of L.C.R. No. 12352, subject
to the provisions of the Programme for National Recovery. On 22nd
December, 1989 the Union wrote to the Court, requesting that it
re-examine its claim on the basis of the new information
available. The Union's claim is for a pay relationship with
craftsmen. A Court hearing was held on 1st March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has consistently argued over the years that the
gardener grades have not been properly graded to take into
account the skill, training and responsibilities involved.
The Union has always believed that they should be paid at
least the equivalent to craft grades. The Court in L.C.R. No.
12352 did make a pay proposal and recognised the training and
apprenticeship requirements, however, it did not address the
future pay relationship issue, or the question of status and
grade arising from these workers' professional qualifications,
work, responsibility and skill. In previous submissions to
the Court, the Corporation has referred to the relationship of
the gardeners rates of pay with unskilled and semi-skilled
workers. It is a denial of common justice that these workers
successfully complete their apprenticeship and become fully
qualified gardeners and then are related for pay purposes to
general operatives.
2. In its previous submission to the Court, the Corporation
stated that the duties of gardeners and general operatives
were similar. There is no similarity between the duties of a
general operative and those of a fully qualified gardener.
Also, in order to be eligible for apprenticeship the candidate
must possess an educational qualification (details supplied to
the Court), whereas when a person seeks employment as a
general operative in the Corporation or other local authority
an educational qualification is not required. Apprentice
gardeners go through a rigorous 3 year apprenticeship and have
to pass all written and oral examinations as set out by
Teagasc the State Training Authority after which they then
qualify for the higher certificate in amenity horticulture
(details supplied to the Court). This is only awarded to
fully qualified time served gardeners and any other courses
are not recognised by Teagasc. There are no training schemes
involving apprenticeships or indeed, training as such in
operation for general operatives in any local authority.
3. Documentation from Teagasc clearly indicates that the
training requirements and training provided in horticulture
(through the higher certificate in amenity horticulture) are
not lower than those of conventional trades (details supplied
to the Court). In addition, an examination of the FAS
document "Apprenticeship A New Approach" shows that the
proposed method for future qualifications is an exact replica
of the gardeners' training system (details supplied to the
Court). There is no justification for the fact that time
served craftspersons trained by FAS and employed by the
Corporation should be paid a higher rate of pay than time
served gardeners trained by Teagasc and employed by the
Corporation. It is the Union's claim that a direct craft
relationship is the most appropriate one. Supervising
gardeners grade I should be remunerated at the equivalent to
that of foreman craftsman, a supervising gardener grade 2
should be paid a rate equivalent to that of an assistant
foreman and a gardener should be paid a rate of pay equivalent
to that of a craftsperson.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim before the Court, which resulted in L.C.R. No.
12352, did not seek any relationship with craftsmen, for the
grades of gardeners. In now seeking a pay relationship for
gardeners with craftsmen, the Union is not merely seeking a
re-examination of its claim, but is submitting a completely
new claim. A pay analogy for gardeners with craftsmen has
been sought by the Union previously and has been the subject
of examination by the Court on three separate occasions. The
Court has not recommended concession of the Union's claims on
any of these occasions. (L.C.R. No.'s 3148, 6573 and 7334
refer). No changes have taken place in the duties and
responsibilities of the gardener grades since then, which
would justify a change in the Court's consistent position.
2. The Union has given as its reason for seeking a
re-examination of its case, a letter to Dublin County Council
from Teagasc purporting to suggest that the training undergone
by gardeners is relevant to a conventional apprenticeship
programme. The County Council sought clarification of this
view and whether there was any research or independent
assessment to support the view. Apparently, no formal or
proper comparison has been carried out on this matter by
Teagasc. It should be noted that FAS, not Teagasc, is the
statutory authority for the construction industry trades and
Teagasc has no responsibility in this field. In any event the
comparison Teagasc is making appears to be between FAS courses
and farm management, not horticulture. It is also relevant to
mention that the principal factor in the determination of pay
must be work performed, not educational qualifications.
3. At the previous Court hearing the Corporation dealt at
length with its difficult financial position and the impact on
the level of its services. This has continued and the
Corporation is continuing to reduce or eliminate unnecessary
expenditure in every feasible area in order to avoid any
further significant run down of services and to minimise staff
reductions. The claim if conceded would result in
astronomical pay increases of between #33.36 (21.6%) to #61.89
(30.4%) (details supplied to the Court). This would have
serious repercussive effects both within and outside the
Corporation. Within the parks grading structure any increases
of the order claimed would have a major impact on the grade of
District Supervisor of Parks. The special increases now on
offer to the gardener grades as a result of L.C.R. No. 12352
and the special increase for local authority general
operatives, range from #16.39 to #17.93 per week (between 9%
and 10%) phased in accordance with the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery. These increases represent a favourable
response and the Union's request to have the existing
recommendation altered should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties. Taking account of the minimum entrance educational
qualifications required for apprentice gardeners, the length and
content of the training period, the opinion of the training
authority providing the courses, and the necessity for the
apprentice to obtain the qualifying certificate before appointment
as a gardener by the Corporation the Court has come to the
conclusion that gardeners so qualified should be graded as
craftsmen.
The Court therefore recommends that those gardeners who have
obtained the above qualifications and who have completed four
years service with the Corporation should be granted craft status
and be appointed to the point on the craft scale approprite to
their service, the difference in salary so arising to be
eliminated in phases in accordance with the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery.
As to the further elements in the Unions claim, the present
grading structure of gardeners, supervisory gardeners grade II and
supervisory gardeners grade 1 is in the view of the Court entirely
inappropriate for the new craft structure which would arise if
both parties accept the first part of the Courts recommendation as
set out above.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claim that Supervisory Gardeners Grade II be graded as assistant
craft foreman, or Supervisory Gardeners Grade 1 be graded as craft
foreman. However, it does recommend that supervisory appointments
be made using the same criteria which apply to the appointment of
assistant foreman and foreman in local authority craft grades.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
23rd April, 1990.
U. M. / J. C. Deputy Chairman.