Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90530 Case Number: LCR13095 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 7 workers in the Housing Maintenance Stores for re-grading.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and evidence presented by
the parties, the Court recommends that the rate of pay of
claimants' jobs be set at differential group 7 on the terms set
out by the Corporation in its earlier offers.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90530 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 7 workers in the Housing
Maintenance Stores for re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 11 Housing Maintenance Depots, each with a stores.
Currently, 4 of these stores are run by Record Keepers who are
paid in pay group 9 of the Schedule of Differentials. The
remaining 7 stores are run by General Operatives who are paid
differential group 3 (#161.68 - #172.53 per week). The Unions, in
September, 1989, claimed that these General Operatives should
correctly be described as Storekeepers and up-graded accordingly.
The Unions claimed that the appropriate rate of pay should be
differential pay group 11 (#170.94 - #181.78 per week). The
Corporation indicated that it would be prepared to seek the
necessary approval to place the workers concerned on differential
pay group 5 (#164.20 - #175.17 per week) provided they carried out
certain additional duties including the duties of the Record
Keeper during periods when he is absent. (Full details provided
to the Court). The Unions rejected the offer and on 16th
February, 1990, the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 5th June, 1990 and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 28th August, 1990, for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 27th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the course of their work the workers concerned must
issue items requested by the tradesmen, keep records of all
items received or returned and items issued and hold the keys
to the depot during working hours. They are also responsible
for ensuring that stock levels are maintained.
3. 2. In 1988, an examination of the stores in Dublin
Corporation, except Housing Maintenance Stores, resulted in
the duties of Stores Labourers and Assistant Storekeepers
being defined (details provided). The position of Assistant
Storekeeper was up-graded and became an Officer Post with a
new salary following the examination. However, some Assistant
Storekeepers opted to retain their non-officer status and to
that extent their job remains as it was previously and is paid
at differential pay group 11. An examination of the duties of
the workers hereconcerned and those of Assistant Storekeepers
shows that the duties are closely related. The jobs are not
the same in every respect but the differences are not great.
One significant difference favours the workers concerned. An
Assistant Storekeeper works under the direct supervision of a
Grade I and Grade II Storekeeper, unlike these workers who
operate the stores on their own.
3. The Unions believe that it is inappropriate to pay the
workers concerned as Stores Labourers nor is it acceptable to
add a few differential points, when pressed in negotiations,
without any real regard for the job itself. The Unions
contend that differential pay group 11 is the appropriate pay
group for the workers concerned.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For a number of years the Corporation has deployed
labourers to certain Housing Maintenance depots to handle
materials and to assist generally in the depots as directed by
the Inspector or other superior. These workers do not work in
stores and cannot be regarded as stores personnel. In so far
as they deal with materials, they are only dealing with
materials which are the general responsibility of the Housing
Maintenance Inspector for the particular area and which are in
the depot following either their issue from the central
Housing Maintenance Store or following their direct purchase.
2. The Corporation believes that, having regard to the
range of duties which the workers in question are required to
carry out, the Unions' claim for payment at differential group
11 is unwarranted. These workers are not necessarily deployed
full-time on the issuing of materials. The value of materials
held in depots is as low as #3,000 whereas the value of stock
in the Corporation's official stores can range from #75,000 to
#1.7m. These workers have no responsibility for the
supervision of any other worker unlike the grade whose pay
equivalent they seek.
4. 3. The Corporation is prepared to seek approval for the
payment of differential group 5 on the basis of certain extra
duties being undertaken by the workers concerned. In this
way, the Corporation would clearly be seen to have taken
account of the movement which did take place in the rate of
pay of Stores Labourers from the basic labourers' rate to pay
group 3, by granting a similar increase to the Labourers in
the Housing Maintenance depots.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions and evidence presented by
the parties, the Court recommends that the rate of pay of
claimants' jobs be set at differential group 7 on the terms set
out by the Corporation in its earlier offers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
27th November, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman