Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91280 Case Number: LCR13321 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the qualifications of gardeners and the grading structure of gardeners.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the two issue before it.
On the claim of the gardeners who do not possess the
qualifications specified in LCR12789 the Court in the
circumstances does not consider it proper to extend the terms of
that Recommendation to cater for the few individuals concerned and
the Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim. The Court does consider that their position might more
usefully be dealt with by direct discussion and negotiation
between the parties.
On the matter of promotional or supervisory grades the Court
issued LCR12789 in the clear knowledge that the Supervisory
Structure which then existed was entirely unsuitable once craft
status was achieved. It is the view of the Court that it is the
right of the Corporation to establish a structure of supervision
which accords with their management requirements and that no
obligation exists to ensure that this needs to reflect in any way
the previous status enjoyed under the old Supervisor Grade I and
Grade II arrangements.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91280 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13321
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the qualifications of gardeners and the
grading structure of gardeners.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Court, in LCR12789 of April 1990, (concerning a claim
for the regrading of gardeners), recommended that gardeners who
had the necessary qualifications should be graded as craftsmen,
and that supervisory appointments be made using the criteria which
apply to the appointment of assistant foremen and foremen in local
authority craft grades. The parties entered into negotiations
regarding the implementation of LCR12789. In a letter to the
Union dated the 21st January, 1991, the Corporation put forward
the following proposals:
1. Those workers who hold qualifications specified in
LCR12789 and who have 4 years' service to be regraded as
tradespersons.
2. Gardeners and Supervisory Gardeners who hold the
specified qualifications but who do not have 4 years' service
to be regraded as tradespersons on completion of 4 years'
service.
3. Gardeners and Supervisory Gardeners who do not hold the
specified qualifications to continue on existing scale of
pay.
4. A new supervisory structure of 7 Assistant Foreman
posts and 14 Chargehand posts.
5. All jobs at supervisory level - Assistant Foreman and
Chargehand - to be filled by competition open to all
tradespersons in the Parks section.
These proposals were rejected by the Union who wanted a new
three grade structure as follows:
7 positions at Foreman grade
7 positions at Assistant Foreman grade
25 positions at Chargehand grade, including 5 acting
positions.
The Union's proposals were not acceptable to the Corporation.
The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Relations Commission in April, 1991. A conciliation
conference was held on the 23rd April, 1991, but no agreement
was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by
the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th May, 1991. A
Court hearing was held on the 5th June, 1991. A letter
recommendation issued on the 17th June, 1991.
3. UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
1. Regarding the educational requirements of gardeners,
LCR12789 has created six anomalies insofar as six workers do
not have the qualifications in terms of completing the
approved courses. However, these workers acquired a level of
competence (under the Supervision of qualified
horticulturists) by virtue of their years of experience (in
some cases 25 years) as gardeners and supervisors. Given the
experience and knowledge of these workers, they should not be
treated less favourably than their colleagues.
SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE
1. In LCR12789 the Court recommended that "supervisory
appointments be made using the criteria which apply to the
appointment of Assistant Foremen and Foremen in Local
Authority Craft grades. However, both Management and the
Union agree that there are no such criteria in the Local
Authority Craft grades.
2. All staff who carry out supervisory duties must be
remunerated adequately. Prior to LCR12789, the workers
concerned were graded as Supervisory Gardeners Grade II and
Supervisory Gardeners Grade I. While the Court did not
accept that Supervisory Gardeners Grade II be graded as
Assistant Foremen and Supervisory Gardeners Grade I be graded
as Foremen, the Union believes that the principle of
remuneration for supervisory duties is a prerequisite for
carrying out such duties.
3. The Union believes that its proposed structure is
logical. There are at present seven districts and the
introduction of the Union's proposal would mean one Foreman
and one Assistant Foreman for each district plus a number of
Chargehand positions dispersed throughout the various
districts covering thirty-four depots. Managements proposal
did not in any way take account of the numbers involved and
the necessity for the grade of Foreman to be included in any
promotional structure.
4. It is vital that the grade of Foreman be incorporated
into any new grading structure. The nature of the work
involved, i.e., the supervisory duties and responsibilities
carried out which include:- responsibility for staff,
ordering of materials, supervision of contracted machinery,
recording staff times on various jobs, setting out the work
and organising holiday rosters, warrants the introduction of
the Foreman grade.
5. The grading structure proposed by the Union is very much
in line with the current grading structures operating within
the Corporation. (Details supplied to the Court).
4. CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
1. The Corporation is satisfied with the existing system of
non-craft gardeners; however, it is prepared to accept
LCR12789 as a package, despite the fact that it will involve
additional annual expenditure in excess of #125,000.
Gardeners who do not possess the requisite qualifications
do not come within the scope of LCR12789.
2. On each of the four occasions when the Union sought an
increase in pay for gardeners, it did so specifically on the
basis of training and qualifications of the gardeners. It is
clear, therefore, that if the minimum entrance educational
qualifications, the length and content of the training period
and the necessity to obtain the qualifying certificate are
the prerequisites to be granted craft status, then a person
who does not possess these qualifications cannot be granted
craft status.
3. The grades of gardeners and supervisory gardeners in the
Corporation are pivotal grades within the Public Service.
Concession of craft status to gardeners who do not possess
the requisite qualifications would have serious repercussions
throughout the Public Service.
SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE:
1. There are three supervisory grades within the Local
Government craft status - Foreman, Assistant Foreman and
Chargehand. The craft gardener supervisory structure offered
to the Union takes full account of the factors which
determine the level of craft supervision in Dublin
Corporation. The total number of craft supervisors - 21 (7
Assistant Foremen and 14 Chargehands) is 42.86% of the total
number of gardeners employed by the Corporation. This
percentage is far higher than the authorised establishment of
craft supervisors in any other Corporation service (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The highest level of craft supervisor for the grade of
the trade in a number of Corporation sections is that of
Assistant Foreman. Details are as follows:
Section Trade
Waterworks Fitters
Waterworks Plumbers
Sewers Fitters
The Corporation, in determining the level of upervisory grade
for Fitters in the Waterworks section as that of Assistant
Foreman Fitter did so having regard to the fact that the
employee would have responsibility for a plant estimated to
cost #76 million, supplying water twenty four hours each day
to a population of 1.2 million people. The job of Assistant
Foreman Fitter in the Sewers and Main Drainage section
involves responsibility for plant estimated to cost #137
million.
3. The ratio of Craft Supervisory Gardeners being offered
by the Corporation as a percentage of the total number of
employees in the Parks section is comparable to that
obtaining in the Housing Maintenance Branch, which is the
main craft section in the Corporation. The relevant figures
are as follows:-
Section Number of Total number %
Craft of Employees
Supervisors
Parks 21 363 5.78
Housing 47 799 5.88
The Union's claim that all the 25 existing Supervisory
Gardeners Grade I and the 14 Supervisory Gardeners Grade 2
must be "fixed up" as Supervisory Craft Gardeners is contrary
to the LCR12789 which stated that "the present grading
structure of Gardeners, Supervisory Gardeners grade II and
Supervisory Gardeners Grade I is entirely inappropriate for
the new craft structure".
4. The reclassification of Gardeners as Craft employees,
without taking account of the supervisory structure proposed
by the Corporation, would involve the following increases:-
#1,585 for each of the 25 Supervisory Gardeners Grade I, at a
cost of #39,625 per annum.
#2,257 for each of the 14 Supervisory Gardeners Grade II, at
a cost of #31,598 per annum.
#2,792 for each of the 10 Gardeners, at a cost of #7,920 per
annum.
5. The Corporation is satisfied the range of trades to be
supervised by Supervisory Gardeners does not merit any job at
Foreman level. The principal craft supervision area in the
Corporation is the Housing Department, where the range of
trades to be supervised comprises nine civil trades and two
engineering trades. The total number of trades to be
supervised in the Parks section is five. In addition,
Foremen in the Housing Department carry out the timekeeping
functions each week of the employees under their control.
The timekeeping functions in respect of Parks section
employees are the responsibility of Timekeepers. The
Corporation has no proposal to cease deploying Timekeepers in
the Parks section nor has the agreement of the appropriate
Trade Unions been sought or obtained in that regard.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the two issue before it.
On the claim of the gardeners who do not possess the
qualifications specified in LCR12789 the Court in the
circumstances does not consider it proper to extend the terms of
that Recommendation to cater for the few individuals concerned and
the Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim. The Court does consider that their position might more
usefully be dealt with by direct discussion and negotiation
between the parties.
On the matter of promotional or supervisory grades the Court
issued LCR12789 in the clear knowledge that the Supervisory
Structure which then existed was entirely unsuitable once craft
status was achieved. It is the view of the Court that it is the
right of the Corporation to establish a structure of supervision
which accords with their management requirements and that no
obligation exists to ensure that this needs to reflect in any way
the previous status enjoyed under the old Supervisor Grade I and
Grade II arrangements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
____________________
June, 1991 John O'Connell
T.O'D / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman