Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9043 Case Number: LCR12921 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the implementation of the 4th phase of the 25th wage agreement - #1.65.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties and given all the circumstances of the
case does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9043 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12921
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the implementation of the 4th phase of
the 25th wage agreement - #1.65.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns fourteen workers who are employed by
Waterford Corporation as general operatives. Labour Court
Recommendation 10669 dealt with a wage increase under the 25th
wage round for general operatives and non-nursing staff employed
by local authorities and health boards outside the Dublin area. A
dispute occurred in Cork and following the intervention of the
Employer - Labour Conference the issue was settled. The agreed
proposals were extended to Waterford and Limerick. Part of the
settlement included an eating-on-site allowance which was conceded
to general operatives/craftsmen subject to a number of conditions.
If the conditions were not fulfilled, the allowance was not paid.
It was accepted by all the workers in Waterford with the exception
of the workers concerned in this claim, who either voted against
the proposal or were excluded by virtue of their duties. The
Union claims that there is #1.65 per week (4th phase of the 25th
wage round) due to the workers concerned since the 1st May, 1987
as it was subsumed into the eating-on-site allowance (#5.65).
Management has rejected the claim. The dispute could not be
resolved in local level discussions and was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 6th September,
1988. Conciliation conferences were held on the 13th January and
9th November, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The issue was
referred to the Labour Court on the 11th January, 1990. A Court
hearing was held in Waterford on the 9th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The implementation of the 4th phase of the 25th wage round
agreement - #1.65 was affected within the context of the
settlement reached at the Employer - Labour Conference in
respect of the Cork Corporation dispute. Part of this
agreement was that the 4th phase was included into a
settlement package which involved an eating-on-site allowance.
The settlement allowed for sections not to enter into the
agreement and therefore some workers would not avail of the
eating-on-site payment, including the workers concerned. The
Union contends that all the workers in Waterford Corporation
were covered by the 25th wage round and therefore were
entitled to all of the conditions and payments that went with
it.
2. By including the final phase of the 25th wage round into a
package, the workers who did not wish to avail of the scheme,
as they were entitled to do by agreement, and those workers
who could not benefit, were denied the full payment of the
wage round. The Union claims that Management should not have
interfered with or altered a national pay award in the public
service agreement, and that the workers concerned are entitled
to be compensated in full for the loss of #1.65 which should
be included in their basic wage.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 25th wage round consisted of an #11 payment paid in
two phases #5 and #6. L.C.R. 10669 contained two elements (i)
the 25th wage round (ii) the elimination of the differential
between the National and Dublin rate. The amount of #1.65 was
not part of the 25th wage round; it only arose from the
resolution of the Cork dispute.
2. The intention of L.C.R. 10669 was the elimination of the
difference in basic pay between a general worker in Dublin
Corporation and his/her counterpart elsewhere. In 1986 the
differential between the Dublin and National rate was #4.22.
However the differential between the Dublin rate and the rate
in Waterford, Cork and Limerick was #0.77; #0.71 and #0.24
respectively. The application of the #4.22 increase in these
three authorities meant that they then exceeded the
Dublin/National rate.
3. In the resolution of the Cork dispute it was agreed that
there would be a clawback of #1.65 p.w. and this was
subsequently accepted in respect of Limerick and Waterford.
In Dublin, Cork and Limerick Corporations personnel, not in
receipt of the eating-on-site allowance, receive the same
basic pay as their colleagues who are paid the allowance.
4. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussions
both at local and national level. On a local level, if the
claim were conceded, it would establish two basic rates of pay
for one job i.e. #168.56 per week for those workers in receipt
of the eating-on-site allowance and #170.91 per week for those
who have declined to accept the allowance. Workers in
Limerick and Cork Corporations would also seek to have the
differential pay rates applied. On a national level it would
increase the disparity in remuneration of different groups of
Local Authority workers performing broadly similar work and
thus negate the achievements of Labour Court Recommendation
10669.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties and given all the circumstances of the
case does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
20th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.