Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/90/273 Case Number: LCR12955 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ATHLONE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (U.D.C.) - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim by the Union for improved pay and conditions for a traffic warden employed by Athlone U.D.C.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the wardens salary is in line with
rates paid to similar workers generally. However it does
recommend that he should be paid the other allowances e.g. eating
on site allowances, normally paid to local authority operatives on
the same grade. The Court recommends that these allowances should
be paid to the warden back dated to the date of their
introduction.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90273 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12955
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ATHLONE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (U.D.C.)
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for improved pay and conditions for a
traffic warden employed by Athlone U.D.C.
BACKGROUND:
2. In this country, traffic wardens have been appointed in one of
three ways;
(i) by local authorities under their general powers to
recruit staff. In such instances the local authorities
have acted with the consent of the Garda Commissioner.
This was a requirement under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961
and 1968 in that it restricted the power to enforce
parking law to people authorised by him.
(ii) by local authorities under the provisions of the Local
Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act, 1975, which enabled
local authorities to appoint their own wardens after
consultation with the Garda Commissioner.
(iii) by the Garda Commissioner who may employ civilian
employees (including wardens) with the consent of the
Minister for Justice. All such civilian employees of
the Garda Commissioner, including the Dublin traffic
wardens, are paid directly by the Accounts Branch of the
Department of Justice.
The worker concerned has been employed by the U.D.C. as a traffic
warden since 1973 and was appointed under the provisions of (1)
above. Although employed by the U.D.C. he reports to the sergeant
in charge, Athlone Garda Station. His starting salary scale was
#22.47 to #27.67 per week and his salary is refunded to the U.D.C.
annually by the Department of Justice. At that time traffic
wardens employed by Dublin Corporation on the same basis as the
worker were on a higher pay scale i.e. #24.44 to #29.64 per week.
The Union claims that when the worker was appointed he was
promised the rate of pay then applicable in Dublin but, due to the
complexities of maintaining parity with Dublin rates, the worker's
pay has fallen out of line and he should now be brought into line
with the salary and allowances applicable to traffic wardens
employed by the Garda Commissioner in Dublin. The U.D.C. rejected
the claim and the matter was referred initially on 4th January,
1989 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
conciliation conference was held as the Department of Justice
wished to examine the claim made by the Union. The Department of
Justice is involved in the claim because the U.D.C. cannot vary
the worker's remuneration without the consent of the Minister for
Justice. As no progress was made at local level the Union again
referred the matter to the conciliation service on 10th November,
1989. A conciliation conference was held on 7th December, 1989 at
which no agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 24th
May, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took place
on 10th July, 1990. The Department of Justice was represented at
the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker commenced work in 1973 he was of the
belief that his rate of pay would be the same as that applying
to similar workers in Dublin. When he discovered his pay was
out line with the Dublin rate he made application to the town
clerk to have his pay brought into line and received an
increase of pay in May, 1974 together with back money. The
payment of monies retrospectively to him restored the original
discrepancy but due to the complexities of maintaining parity
with the Dublin rate his pay subsequently fell out of line.
2. The worker was appointed under the 1968 Road Traffic Act
and is now in a unique position. Since his appointment two
further methods of appointment of traffic wardens have been
introduced. Under the 1975 Traffic Wardens Act Westmeath
County Council has appointed two traffic wardens who are on a
higher rate of pay than the worker and also receive an eating
on site allowance. It is unacceptable that the worker is paid
less than traffic wardens in the same county. Also in 1980
the Garda Commissioner recruited traffic wardens for the
Dublin area and Dublin Corporation ceased to have
responsibility for them. These traffic wardens receive higher
pay than the worker and receive allowances for boots, eating
on site, travelling, and working on Saturday.
3. The workers duties as an authorised officer place him in a
different position to those appointed under the 1975 Traffic
Wardens Act. He reports to a Garda Sergeant and his duties
and responsibilities are identical to those currently applying
to traffic wardens recruited by the Garda Commissioner. His
pay and conditions should therefore be linked to traffic
wardens employed by the Garda Commissioner in Dublin.
ATHLONE U.D.C. ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay of Dublin traffic wardens is linked to a
particular group of Dublin based workers who have always
maintained a differential over their provincial equivalents.
This differential in the pay of Dublin wardens to provincial
wardens was in existence at the time the worker commenced his
employment with the U.D.C.
2. The worker is not employed under the same circumstances as
Dublin traffic wardens. He is a local authority worker
employed by Athlone U.D.C. while Dublin traffic wardens are
direct employees of the Department of Justice and are regarded
as unestablished civil servants for pension purposes. They
have therefore very different pension arrangements.
3. The worker's pay is determined by reference to the pay of
refuse workers in provincial centres. If the claim for parity
with Dublin traffic wardens is successful it could lead to
widespread similar claims from other groups of local authority
employees who experience a pay differential with their Dublin
equivalents. The cost of conceding such claims would place a
considerable extra burden on the public finances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the wardens salary is in line with
rates paid to similar workers generally. However it does
recommend that he should be paid the other allowances e.g. eating
on site allowances, normally paid to local authority operatives on
the same grade. The Court recommends that these allowances should
be paid to the warden back dated to the date of their
introduction.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
19th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.