Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90128 Case Number: LCR12851 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for an increase in the differential paid to the driver of the Corporation's mobile crane.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court does not
find any basis which would justify recommending concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90128 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12851
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in the differential paid to the driver
of the Corporation's mobile crane.
BACKGROUND:
2. Corporation employees assigned to operate machines or drive
vehicles are paid the basic general operative rate plus a
differential, depending on the nature of the machine/vehicle. The
three relevant pay groups are:-
Group 10 - car, lorry, tractors, dumpers, etc.
Group 13 - mobile crane, Armfield and Simon Hoist operators.
Group 15 - Bulldozer, excavator, loading shovels etc.
The Corporation recently replaced its old droth crane with a new
mobile crane. The Union on behalf of the crane operator is
seeking re-classification from group 13 to group 15 (an extra
#2.01 per week). The Union based its claim on the extra width,
lifting capacity and reach of the new machine. The Corporation
rejected the claim. Following the failure of local level
discussions the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 20th September, 1989. A conciliation
conference on the 23rd February, 1990 (earliest suitable date)
failed to resolve the dispute and on the 5th March the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 23rd April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The old crane had a lifting capacity of two tons, had two
gears (one forward, one reverse) and had a gib reach of 26
feet. The new crane, on the other hand, has a lifting
capacity of twelve tons, has six gears (five forward, one
reverse) and has a gib reach of 42 feet. Therefore, the
capacity of the new crane is far greater than that of the old
one and thus the responsibilities of operating it are also
much greater.
2. There is a need for a high degree of safety and skill in
the operation of such a large machine. Lack of skill could be
fatal to both the operator, his fellow workers and indeed the
public.
3. The claim is in line with the existing differentials for
heavy plant machinery. The Union is not attempting to create
a new differential.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation does not accept that there is any
justification for the payment of an increase to the worker
concerned as the new model performs the same range of
functions as the previous mobile crane. The senior engineer,
Mechanical Section investigated this matter when the claim was
first submitted to the Corporation and he was satisfied that
the operative of the new model mobile crane did not merit a
higher rate of pay than the operative of the Armfield/Simon
Hoist, which job he considered to be more responsible. The
senior engineer has again confirmed his position in this
matter and has stated that from the safety aspect the new
model incorporates safety factors which were not in the
previous mobile crane (details supplied to the Court).
2. Dublin Corporation and the unions representing general
operatives agreed in 1969 to a rationalisation of the pay
structure of general operatives throughout the Corporation
whereby the Corporation introduced a basic pay scale for
labourers and a schedule of twenty three differentials above
the labourer's rate which are applicable to those employees
who are assigned work above that of a labourer. The purpose
of determining the schedule of differentials was to group
together in the same differential work which was broadly
similar in character or equal in responsibility in order to
ensure that there would be equitable payment to the employees.
As part of the agreement the drivers of various mechanically
propelled vehicles were grouped in three main differentials
(details supplied to the Court).
4. 3. The grouping of the rates of pay for the main driving
duties was accepted at the time by both the Corporation and
the unions as being a rational arrangement which ensured, in
return for the payment of standard rates for a wide spectrum
of driving duties, that the Corporation would have flexibility
of deployment within those bands. For example the driver who
normally drove a small saloon car could also be required to
drive vehicles up to the largest lorry in the Corporation
without any extra payment. Similarily the employee who
normally drives a large lorry would not be paid less were he
to be assigned to drive a saloon car. It was never envisaged
as part of that agreement that the rate of payment would be
altered in the event that the Corporation substituted a
different model of the same class of mechanised vehicle or
within the group of vehicles included in the same pay
differential.
4. Concession of the Union's claim will have repercussive
effects. A claim for an increase in pay has already been
submitted on behalf of the driver of the hiabs lorry load
driver in the Electricity and Public Lighting Section, who is
also included in pay group 13.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court does not
find any basis which would justify recommending concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___15th___May,____1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman