Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90586 Case Number: AD9058 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LONGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Council against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 105/90 concerning re-grading.
Recommendation:
5. The Court in the light of the submissions made and in
particular in the light of the worker's liability for call out,
together with the tasks of descaling sewage pipes etc, is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner was correct in his
Recommendation and that the Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90586 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5890
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: LONGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Council against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 105/90 concerning re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is attached to the Council's sanitary
services division and is employed in the grade of light equipment
operative. The Union claimed that on the basis of the worker's
duties and responsibilities his post should be upgrded to that of
caretaker. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation on
the 26th April, 1990. On the 14th May, 1990 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"On the evidence presented I am satisfied that the claimant's
duties are more akin to those of a Caretaker than those of a
Light Machine Operative. The Council recognised that there
was a case to be met and made the original award. In my view
it does not go far enough to compensate for the claimant's
duties. At the same time the Union's claim for top grade
caretaker rate is excessive in the extreme for the same
reason - his duties do not merit such consideration.
In all the circumstances I recommend that he is placed on the
Grade 111 Scale at a point above his present remuneration and
that he moves up the scale annually thereafter to maximum in
time."
The Council rejected the recommendation and on the 5th October,
1990 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held in
Longford on the 27th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The main duties of the worker concerned are, daily
checking of sewage pumps for Longford town, regular servicing
of the sewage pumps, cleaning out of sewage pumps, descaling
sewage pipes and manholes throughout the County. These duties
can only be described as those of a sewage caretaker and not a
light equipment operator.
2. The worker is also required to be available in the event
of a breakdown, and carry out his duties during the Christmas
period. A driver who works with him and under his direction
is paid the same rate as the claimant. As the worker
concerned takes overall responsibility he should receive
higher remuneration for the duties he performs.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for upgrading was rejected because the worker
concerned was a labourer assigned to sanitary services work
and liable to be assigned to other work from time to time. At
present he enjoys the Light Equipment Operator's rate because
of his involvement with pumping equipment.
2. The sewage treatment plant at Longford provides primary
treatment only and this would fall within Grade 1 of the
grading structure for water and sewage works Caretakers, i.e.
the equivalent to the Light Operator's rate.
3. If the Council did engage a sewage caretaker he would be
required to perform his duties on a seven day per week basis,
as is normal for water and sewage works caretakers. This does
not apply in the case of the worker concerned.
DECISION:
5. The Court in the light of the submissions made and in
particular in the light of the worker's liability for call out,
together with the tasks of descaling sewage pipes etc, is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner was correct in his
Recommendation and that the Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
13th December, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.