Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9022 Case Number: LCR12824 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for the regrading of Supervising Gardeners Grade 1, Supervising Gardeners grade 2 and gardeners.
Recommendation:
10. In view of the fact that the circumstances which apply in
this case are similar to those which apply in Dublin Corporation,
the Court found no grounds for issuing a different recommendation
for the grades of gardeners in Dublin County Council to that which
it has issued for those in Dublin Corporation and recommends as
follows.
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 necessity for the apprentices to obtain the
qualifying certificate before appointment as a gardener by the
County Council, 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 Council should be granted craft status and
be appointed to the point on the craft scale appropriate 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 Union's claim, the present
grading structure of gardeners, supervisory gardeners grade 2 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 Court's recommendation
as set out above. The Court therefore, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim that supervisory gardeners grade 2
be graded as assistant craft foremen or supervisory gardeners
grade 1 be graded as craft foremen. However, it does recommend
that supervisory appointments be made using the same criteria
which apply to the appointment of assistant foremen and foremen in
local authority craft areas.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9022 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12824
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for the regrading of Supervising
Gardeners Grade 1, Supervising Gardeners grade 2 and gardeners.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimants are currently on the following scales:-
Grade 1 Supervisor - #178.03 - #188.88
Grade 2 Supervisor - #167.38 - #177.96
Gardener - #158.67 - #169.29
The Union is seeking to have them re-graded as follows:-
Grade 1 - #229.64 - #249.56 (Foreman of works)
Grade 2 - #209.82 - #228.02 (Assistant foreman of works)
Gardener - #191.37 - #207.97 (Craftsperson).
The claimants have traditionally had the same rates as
corresponding grades in Dublin Corporation who in turn have an
established relationship with the general operative grade. Any
special increases and productivity increases payable to general
operatives were also paid to the gardener grades.
3. In 1986, the ITGWU submitted a claim for the upgrading of
gardener grades in Dublin Corporation. In November of that year,
a similar claim was lodged on behalf of those in Dublin County
Council. As agreement on the pay claim for those in the
Corporation was not reached, a Labour Court hearing was held on
the claim. LCR12352 (issued in April, 1989) recommended an
increase of 5% to the gardener grades' wage scales subject to the
provision of Clause 3.3 of the Programme for National Recovery.
In May, 1989, Dublin County Council informed the Union that it
would be seeking sanction to have these terms applied to the
gardeners in the Council. This was rejected by the Union and on
the 30th June, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Two conciliation conferences on the 2nd
October and 3rd November (earliest suitable dates) failed to
resolve the dispute and on the 3rd January, 1990 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 25th January, 1990.