Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90603 Case Number: LCR13244 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions for the regrading of storemen.
Recommendation:
5. Notwithstanding the Council letter of 1976 which referred to a
pay-relationship, the Court does not consider that the Union has
established that there was pay parity between Assistant
Storekeepers in Dublin Corporation and Storemen in Dublin County
Council or, if there ever was such parity, that it continued up to
1989 when a new structure and pay scales were implemented in the
Corporation. Despite close questioning by the Court no
substantive evidence to support the claim was presented.
Indeed prior to LCR11819 in 1988, there was not even pay parity
between the claimants. This is borne out by the facts that in
1985 one group of the claimants (Storemen-Roads) sought and won a
continuation of their pay-relationship with Gangers employed by
the Council and as a result their colleagues in other sections
subsequently sought a pay increase to restore a pay differential
which they previously held above the Storemen-Roads.
The Gangers increase which started this train of events, though
productivity-based, related to the position of their counterparts
in the Corporation. In the absence of any recorded agreement on
parity between the Assistant Storekeepers in the Corporation and
the Storemen, the Court cannot accept that an external agreement
of this nature existed for the claimants alongside an internal pay
relationship which was also related back to Dublin Corporation.
Having regard to all these circumstances, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90603 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13244
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for the regrading of storemen.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988, the stores in Dublin Corporation were reorganised.
This resulted in a new grading structure for staff. The new
structure is Senior Storekeeper, Storekeeper Grade 1 and
Storekeeper Grade 2. All carry officer status. In March, 1989,
when the new grading structure was implemented the Unions in the
County Council, who had lodged a claim for similar restructuring,
sought discussions with the Council on the matter. The Unions'
claimed that the Storekeeper Grade 2 scale (#10,470 - #12,480)
should be applied to stores staff in the Council on the basis that
parity had existed between the two grades prior to the
Corporation's reorganisation. The Storemen in the Council opted
out of the July, 1989, Public Service Special Pay Award in order
to pursue their claim for regrading under Clause 3.3 of the
Revised Public Service Pay Agreement. Following local discussions
the Council agreed to undertake an Organisation and Methods (O&M)
Study on the matter. This was completed and made available to the
Unions in June, 1990. Despite subsequent discussions agreement
between the parties could not be reached and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 9th
August, 1990. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 5th October, 1990, and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court on 16th October, 1990, for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 27th
November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At a meeting on 5th October, 1989, when asked whether
they would agree that, even if there was no restructuring in
the County, they would have a case to answer for the storemen
because of their traditional pay link, the Council responded
in the affirmative. The Council also stated that "unless
there are significant differences they would not dispute
parity".
2. On 20th June, 1990, the Council forwarded a copy of
their O & M report which concluded, inter-alia, that it would
be neither feasible nor practical to introduce the
Corporation's grading structure for the following reasons:-
(i) the over staffing of the General Purposes Store
would need to be addressed prior to any
consideration for regrading;
(ii) the figures indicate the level of activity is far
below that of the Corporation Stores, having
regard to the value of through-put and outdoor
staff served by each store. The Corporation
Housing Department depot stores are in some cases
greater than Council Stores;
(iii) the reduction of stores staff required to
introduce a structure similar to that of the
Corporation could not in itself justify the major
organisational changes needed to facilitate a
regrading of the type sought, and the capital
expenditure required is beyond the resources of
Dublin County Council;
(iv) the regrading system introduced into the
Corporation, simply cannot be grafted onto the
Council's stores system as there is not, and
cannot be, any significant change in the duties
and responsibilities of Storemen and Storekeepers
to warrant such a regrading.
3. In 2(ii) above the Council refer to the level of activity in
the stores by comparison with the Corporation. It should be
pointed out that the study recommended by the Employer/Labour
Conference and carried out by the Corporation was based on the
valuation of the stores and not the through-put. (Details of the
Council's store valuations provided to the Court). The Council
also refer to the reduction of staff needed to introduce a
structure similar to the Corporation. It would appear to the
Unions that to introduce a new structure it would be necessary to
increase rather than reduce staff. It has never been the Unions'
contention that the structure, store by store, should be the same
as the Corporation but that it should be a modified version of the
same structure.
4. The duties of Storekeeper Grade 2 have not changed as a result
of the Corporation's rationalisation. The number in the grade has
been increased. The Corporation argued that this grade should be
increased and the numbers in the more senior grades reduced
because of their importance to the running of the stores. The
Unions have always argued that, in the Council, because the
majority of the Storemen are working on a single-handed basis,
their level, of responsibility has always been higher than the
'assistant' in the Corporation, who has two grades at a more
senior level in his store.
5. The Union's contends that the pay relationship should be
restored under Clause 3.3 of the Revised Public Service Pay
Agreement. The Union's also believe that since the Corporation
and Council have the same grading structures in all other areas,
the Council's Storemen should also be offered "officer status".
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no established relationship between Storemen in
the Council and any stores grade in the Corporation.
Traditionally, in the Council the roads Storemen had a parity
relationship with the Roads Ganger for pay purposes and the
Storemen in other departments received a differential above
the Rounds Storemen. This relationship was confirmed by the
Labour Curt in 1985 (L.C.R. 9490 refers). Also in 1987, the
Unions submitted a claim for restoration of the differential
which existed between the Storemen and Roads Storemen. In
making this claim the Unions made no reference whatsoever to
any relationship with stores staff in the Corporation.
(LCR11819 refers). Concession of the claim would break the
relationship with the Council's Ganger Grade and would result
in repercussive claims from other grades. It would also
create a situation whereby the Storemen would be paid #35 more
on the maximum point than the Supervisors. This would turn
the whole supervisory structure on its head.
2. The Council's O&M Study shows that it is neither
feasible nor practical to introduce the Corporation's grading
structure to the Council's stores. The figures indicate that
activity levels in the Council's stores are far below the
Corporation's levels, having regard to the through-put and
outdoor staff served by each store. The reduction in stores
staff required to introduce a similar structure to the
Corporation could not in itself justify the major
organisational changes needed to facilitate the regrading and
the capital expenditure required in beyond the Council's
resources. The Corporation's regrading system cannot be
grafted onto the Council's stores system as there is no change
in the duties of Storemen to warrant such regrading.
5. 3. Dublin Corporation, as well as having the large Central
Departmental Stores, also operate some Local Depot Stores, but
no stores staff are allocated to these 'stores'. At present
the General Operative who looks after these 'stores' is paid
at the Group 3 differential and a claim is currently before
the Court for an increase in this differential. These
'stores' are of the same order as the Council's stores, with a
broadly similar through-put value. The Corporation has
offered to pay the Group 5 differential which is less than
that paid to the Council's Storemen. The Council considers
that the duties for the two posts are similar and are
comparable in scale.
4. The Unions' claim seeks an increase of approximately #55
or 30% (allowing for the deferred #7.75 special pay award) on
the maximum of the Storeman pay scale. Such a claim is
totally out of line with current pay settlements and
inflation. Recent cutbacks in financing have had a very
serious effect on the Council's operations and the Council
simply cannot afford the cost of this claim, particularly when
it is not in a position to rationalise or achieve any
economies as a result of it.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Notwithstanding the Council letter of 1976 which referred to a
pay-relationship, the Court does not consider that the Union has
established that there was pay parity between Assistant
Storekeepers in Dublin Corporation and Storemen in Dublin County
Council or, if there ever was such parity, that it continued up to
1989 when a new structure and pay scales were implemented in the
Corporation. Despite close questioning by the Court no
substantive evidence to support the claim was presented.
Indeed prior to LCR11819 in 1988, there was not even pay parity
between the claimants. This is borne out by the facts that in
1985 one group of the claimants (Storemen-Roads) sought and won a
continuation of their pay-relationship with Gangers employed by
the Council and as a result their colleagues in other sections
subsequently sought a pay increase to restore a pay differential
which they previously held above the Storemen-Roads.
The Gangers increase which started this train of events, though
productivity-based, related to the position of their counterparts
in the Corporation. In the absence of any recorded agreement on
parity between the Assistant Storekeepers in the Corporation and
the Storemen, the Court cannot accept that an external agreement
of this nature existed for the claimants alongside an internal pay
relationship which was also related back to Dublin Corporation.
Having regard to all these circumstances, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th April, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. _______________
Chairman