Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9182 Case Number: LCR13266 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Unions for the application of the Clerical Officer pay scale to 29 Depot Assistants.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered at length the submissions made by the
parties, the Court does not consider that the Unions have
established grounds to justify the upgrading claimed for the Depot
Assistants. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession
of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9182 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13266
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for the application of the Clerical
Officer pay scale to 29 Depot Assistants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Depot Assistants provide a clerical service in the County
Council's depots. The Unions maintain that this grade is unique
to Dublin County Council. There was a similar grade called
Engineer's Office Assistant in other Local Authorities which was
regraded Clerical Officer in the mid 1970's. The Unions claimed
on 7th November, 1989 that the Depot Assistants should be regraded
as Clerical Officers on the basis that their duties are similar to
those of Clerical Officers. The Depot Assistants are on a 13
point scale from #8,362 to #8,923 (they are also paid an
eating-on-site allowance and one hours travelling time). The
Clerical Officers have a 14 point scale from #8,077 to #13,281.
The special pay award granted to Local Authority general workers
was not accepted by the Depot Assistants so as not to affect the
phasing of any increase they may obtain as a result of this claim,
which they claim should be dealt with under Clause 3.3 of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Council has
rejected the Unions' claim on the basis that the job is correctly
graded. As agreement could not be reached locally, the matter was
referred on 30th October, 1990, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 18th January, 1991, and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 18th February, 1991.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The duties of a Clerical Officer and the duties of a
Depot Assistant are similar (details provided to the Court).
In the case of a number of the existing Depot Assistants,
their posts were previously filled by Clerical Officers and in
the Deansrath, Coolmine and Tallaght Depots, the existing
post-holders are Clerical Officers.
2. In all other Local Authorities (excepting Dublin
Corporation who have a different structure), following
regrading in 1972, of the Engineer's Office Assistants to
Clerical Officers subsequent vacancies in Depots were filled
by Clerical Officers. Dublin County Council is unique in that
it alone recreated a problem which existed nationwide before
1972.
3. There is no agreement in the Council covering the
co-operation with or operation of new technology by Depot
Assistants. There is an interim agreement covering the
Clerical Officers and if the Depot Assistants were regraded as
Clerical Officers then the Unions would have to consider their
position in regard to their operation of technology. This
would, in the long-term, be of considerable benefit to the
Council.
4. The majority of Depot Assistants are young people who
would like to make a career in the County Council but for whom
promotional opportunities are almost non-existent. In this
regard it is noteworthy that a number of the Engineer's Office
Assistants regraded to Clerical Officer in 1972 were
successful in promotional competitions in the administrative
area. Some have achieved the Senior Administrative Officer
grade.
5. Since the effort to grade these posts at the proper
level commenced in 1972, the Unions consider that in 1991, the
Council should come back into line with their counterparts in
the rest of the country and back into line with the agreement
made in 1972 when the Engineer's Office Assistants were
regraded.
6. The Unions contend that this claim should be dealt with
in the context of Clause 3.3 of the P.N.R. and that the
operative date of the award should be 1st July, 1989. The
Unions also claim that the Depot Assistants total earnings
should be taken into consideration on deciding their entry
point to the Clerical Officer scale.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions, in 1980, submitted a claim on behalf of
these staff and following the issue of LCR5841 they were
regraded as Depot Assistants and a parity with Record Keeper
in Dublin Corporation was established. This parity has been
maintained since that time and the pay of Depot Assistants has
been adjusted in line with this relationship since then.
There have been no changes in the duties and responsibilities
of Depot Assistants since 1980 which would justify the payment
of the increase sought by the Unions.
2. The Unions' claim for a rate of pay similar to that
payable to Clerical Officers was rejected by the Court in
1980. The Council is satisfied that there is no comparison
between the duties of Depot Assistant and those of Clerical
officer. The educational requirements for Clerical Officer
are higher and the recruitment procedures are quite different.
The duties of Clerical Officers' encompass the whole range of
clerical work including case work, correspondence, report
writing, responsibility for cash, wages, public counter
duties, etc. The duties of Depot Assistants on the other hand
involve the carrying out of routine minor clerical duties such
as keeping and copying records of plant hire, time,
attendance, requisitions for materials etc., and these duties
are carried out under the direct supervision of Engineers.
Such duties are usually repetitive on a weekly or monthly
basis. This claim is seeking to by-pass the qualifications
and particulars laid down on a national basis for the Clerical
Officer post and to have appointments made through the back
door. The Council's Organisation and Methods Department have
carried out an examination of the job and they are satisfied
that the job continues to be on par with the grade of Record
Keeper in the Corporation and that there is no grounds for
breaking this pay relationship.
3. The Council's finances have suffered from severe
cutbacks over the last number of years. This has led to a 13%
reduction in the expenditure on materials over the last 3
years, which in turn resulted in a reduction in the Depot
Assistants' workload. In these circumstances the Unions'
claim is unwarranted and unjustified.
3. 4. One of the consequences of concession of this claim is
that Depot Assistants would be paid more in many cases than
the senior supervisors in the Depot in which they work. The
supervisors have duties and responsibilities far more onerous
than anything which the Depot Assistants would be required to
perform and clearly concession of this claim would turn the
whole hierarchial structure of the local depots on its head
and would cause resentment amongst the supervisory grades.
5. The Unions' claim represents an increase of
approximately #75 per week gross at the maximum. Such a claim
is totally out of line with pay settlements in the current
climate with the latest annual inflation rate of 2.7%. The
claim is an attempt to by-pass the pay restraint provisions of
both the current and last Public Service Pay Agreements. If
the massive pay increase sought is allowed, it will leave a
breach in the Pay Agreement for all and sundry to march
through.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered at length the submissions made by the
parties, the Court does not consider that the Unions have
established grounds to justify the upgrading claimed for the Depot
Assistants. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession
of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
26th April, 1991 ---------------
B.O'N/U.S. Chairman