Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90325 Case Number: LCR13032 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of overtime and change of job title.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all aspects of the case as
outlined by the parties takes the view that the supervisor post at
Shanganagh Sewerage pumping station is not comparable with the
post at Swords sewerage works.
Accordingly the Court recommends the Union accept the offer of the
County Council.
The Court further recommends that the issue of the inbuilt
payment for extra hours liability be the subject of a review in
two years.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90325 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13032
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of overtime and change of job
title.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a caretaker at the Swords
sewerage treatment works. His current rate of pay is equivalent
to that of assistant foreman of works. As part of his duties he
is required to work nine hours per week overtime with no extra
payment. The Union is claiming the elimination of unpaid overtime
and the upgrading of the worker's job title to that of plant
supervisor (the equivalent title to that held by the supervisor at
Shanganagh works who is paid at the foreman of works rate of pay).
Following discussions between the parties the Council accepted
that the rate of remuneration applicable to the post of caretaker
at the Swords plant should be upgraded to the foreman rate. The
Council also offered to reduce the unpaid overtime requirement on
Saturdays and Sundays by one hour thus reducing the overall unpaid
overtime requirement to seven hours per week. The Union indicated
that this offer would be acceptable if the requirement to work
unpaid overtime was deleted entirely and the title of the post
changed to plant supervisor. This claim was rejected by the
Council. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue which was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
11th December, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the
20th April, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 8th June, 1990. A Court
hearing was held on the 17th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The permanent staff complement at the Swords works
consists of a caretaker and two general operatives. The
permanent staff at the Shanganagh works consists of a plant
supervisor, assistant plant supervisor and two general
operatives. The role played by the caretaker is similar to
that of plant supervisor in that each is responsible for the
proper operation of the works, maintenance of all units and
all other duties associated with the function of the works and
the outfall sewer. However, in addition the caretaker must
maintain and monitor the microbiological mass which is the
core of the further treatment carried out by a treatment
works (Swords) as opposed to a disposal works (Shanganagh).
2. The Council understood from the outset that the Swords
plant could not be operated successfully within the confines
of a normal 40 hour week, and attempted to safeguard itself
against the payment of overtime for the additional hours
worked by laying down in the conditions pertaining to the job
a "standard" working week of between 40 and 50 hours
stipulating that no extra remuneration would be paid for any
hours worked outside this "standard" week. These conditions,
drawn up in 1981 were subsequently renegotiated on behalf of
the then caretaker in 1982, and limited the amount of unpaid
overtime to be worked by the caretaker to nine hours per week.
3. The Council has conceded that no other worker employed by
them is subject to such an imposition. In fact, permanent
pensionable salaried officers of the Council, who enjoy all
the perks of officership, are paid overtime or granted time
off in lieu, for any hours worked outside their standard
hours. The Union has been unable to locate any member of the
workforce, in either public or private sectors who is required
to work any period of time for no pay in 1990.
4. The Union is surprised at the Council's reluctance to
change the title of the job of the worker concerned from
caretaker to plant supervisor. The Council has already agreed
that the rate of remuneration should be upgraded to that of
foreman of works/plant supervisor. There is no additional
cost involved in changing the title. The Union is concerned
that the title of "caretaker" does not adequately reflect the
responsibility attached to it. It also fails to take
cognizance of the qualifications required by a candidate for
the post i.e. mechanical and electrical experience. Many
other positions on the Council's staff carry the title
"caretaker" and the pay for these conditions indicates a very
low level of responsibility. This convinces the Union that
the more appropriate title for the job of the worker concerned
would be plant supervisor.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was appointed as a fitter/mechanic in
1981 with the appropriate craftsman's rate of pay. In 1985 he
was successful in his application for the post of caretaker,
Swords treatment works. He accepted the position in
accordance with the terms as advertised and was appointed to
the appropriate point of the scale (details of duties, hours
of work and pay scale supplied to the Court). The scale is
that which applies to assistant foreman of works. It should
be noted in point '6' of the particulars of employment that
the question of working hours is fully explained and the rate
of pay for the post was fixed having regard to the
requirements in relation to hours of work.
2. Subsequent to the Union's claim for an improved rate of
pay in 1988 it was explained at various meetings that the
worker concerned was being paid at the appropriate rate for
the job and for the duties as specified. It was also
explained that the two other caretakers who were being paid at
the foreman of works rate were paid on a personal basis as a
result of re-deployment in a redundancy situation on the 'red
circling' of their existing foreman-of-works rate of pay.
3. As a result of protracted discussions and on the
understanding that it would settle all matters in relation to
rate of pay, duties and hours of work the Council made an
offer of the foreman of works rate of pay to the worker. It
also offered improved conditions in relation to hours of work
and attendance at work on Saturdays and Sundays. The Union
rejected this offer.
4. The Council's offer is more than generous and it is not
prepared to dilute in any way the conditions under which it
was made. With regard to the title of the post it should be
noted that the nationally recognised title for such posts in
sewerage works is caretaker. There is no reason to change
this title as such change would lead to a multiplicity of
titles and would result in confusion. If the requirement is
not acceptable to the Union then the offer of foreman-of-works
rate of pay which was conditional on its acceptance is
withdrawn.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all aspects of the case as
outlined by the parties takes the view that the supervisor post at
Shanganagh Sewerage pumping station is not comparable with the
post at Swords sewerage works.
Accordingly the Court recommends the Union accept the offer of the
County Council.
The Court further recommends that the issue of the inbuilt
payment for extra hours liability be the subject of a review in
two years.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
27th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.