Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91131 Case Number: LCR13300 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning revised structures for draughtspersons employed by the Department of Defence.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account previous Labour Court recommendations the Court is
satisfied that the Union's claim with regard to "equating of the
pay" is valid and accordingly recommends that the Department agree
to implement the revised scales.
As this matter arose from a restructuring of the grade it cannot
have repercussive effects.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
additional promotional outlets.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91131 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13300
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning revised structures for draughtspersons
employed by the Department of Defence.
BACKGROUND:
2. The question of revised structures for draughtspersons has
been the subject of negotiations since 1974. The Labour Court has
issued three recommendations relevant to the matter - Labour Court
recommendations NO. 6261, 7151 and 12217.
3. Following the issue of Recommendation No. 12217 discussions
took place between the parties on the introduction of a revised
structure for draughtpersons. The Department proposed to provide
promotional outlets for draughtspersons by introducing a new
grading structure to embrace all technicians in the building area.
The structure proposed was technician, senior technician and
principal technician and including the creation of an extra
principal technician post. Agreement on these proposals was
reached following a conciliation conference held on 29th January,
1990.
4. The Union claims that the Department has not fully
implemented the agreement as it has not established proper
promotional positions for draughtspersons or equated the pay of
draughtspersons with that of technicians in accordance with the
Department's proposals (Paragraph 4 of Annex C of the Department's
submission to the Labour Court on the 5th January, 1989) which
read as follows:-
"The pay scales for the different grades to equate as follows:
Technician - Draughtsman
Senior Technician - Senior Draughtsman
Principal Technician - Principal Draughtsman"
The Department rejects the Union's claim and contends that the
Union are misinterpreting the reference to equation of pay. The
Department contends that the equation referred to is the rates for
draughtspersons.
5. As no agreement was reached the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 5th November, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on 8th January, 1991. As the
issue could not be brought to a conclusion the parties referred
the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation was held on 26th March,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Department's proposals clearly and unambiguously
state the intention to equate the pay of technicians to that
of draughtspersons. Without the equating of the pay of
draughtsperson to that of technician there is no
restructuring.
2. The Department has now adopted the terms of
"technician", "senior technician" and "principal technician"
to cover all draughtspersons and technicians but it has not
equated their pay as proposed. Consequently there is a
peculiar situation where personnel are shown to be of the
same grade but on different salary scales. This is not in
accordance with the Department's proposal recommended for the
Union's acceptance by the Labour Court - Recommendation
12217.
3. The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 2217 also
recommended that "the parties should negotiate the structures
of the command planning and design teams and the criteria for
establishing principal technician posts". The Department's
proposals on this discriminates against the majority of the
workers who reside and are employed outside the Dublin area.
The condition that technical staff would have to increase to
five in order that a senior post be created is unrealistic
and unachieveable outside of Dublin.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Following the issue of Labour Court recommendation 12217
discussions took place with the Union on its implementation.
The Department had indicated that it was prepared to seek
sanction for the creation of additional posts as the need
arose. Sanction was obtained for the creation of a further
principal technician post. This was confirmed in settlement
proposals accepted by the Union at a conciliation conference
in January, 1990.
2. The Union claims that the Department's proposals for
restructuring implied an increase in pay for draughtspersons
and refers to the Department's submission to the Labour Court
of the 5th January, 1989 and the Court's recommendation on
the relevant claim in support of this claim. It was not the
Department's intention that draughtspersons' pay should be
equal to that of technicians' and the Union are
misinterpreting paragraph 4 of Annex C the submission. The
equation of pay referred to by the Department was the then
rates for draughtsmen (details of rates of pay which applied
were supplied to the Court).
3. Civilian draughtsmen employed by the Department have a
long standing relationship for pay purposes, with
draughtspersons in the Office of Public Works. It is not
proposed to interfere with that relationship with the
creation of the new structures. The Department has met the
claim for promotional outlets by providing two principal
technician posts. It is not the practice when providing
promotional outlets for a particular grade to provide
increases in pay for those who might not obtain promotion or
indeed look for promotion.
4. The present rates of pay of technicians are those which
apply to the related grades in the Office of Public Works.
The pay scale of engineering technician has never been
applied to the draughtspersons' grades nor is there any pay
relationship with the grade. Special pay awards made to the
related grades in the Office of Public Works have been paid
to the draughtspersons (now technician) and this will apply
in the future also.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account previous Labour Court recommendations the Court is
satisfied that the Union's claim with regard to "equating of the
pay" is valid and accordingly recommends that the Department agree
to implement the revised scales.
As this matter arose from a restructuring of the grade it cannot
have repercussive effects.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
additional promotional outlets.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th June, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman