Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92537 Case Number: LCR13879 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (O.P.W.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the grading of drainage foremen.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties, does not find grounds for concession of the Union's
claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92537 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13879
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (O.P.W.)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the grading of drainage foremen.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The O.P.W. employs 39 drainage foremen in three grades
(Grade I, II and III - Grade III being the lowest). The
Union is claiming, as the majority of foremen (35) are in
Grades I and II and that the duties and responsibilities of
all three grades are similar, that those still on Grade III
should be upgraded to Grade II.
2. The O.P.W. rejects this claim on the basis that all
foremen are in the grade appropriate to their duties and
responsibilities which vary between locations and grades.
They stated their opposition to any "blanket" regrading and
said that each case would have to be examined on its merits.
3. This claim was initially lodged with the O.P.W. on
17/4/89 and when no progress was made it was referred for
conciliation which took place on the 5th December, 1991.
Agreement could not be reached and the issue was referred to
the Labour Court on 7th September, 1992 under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 28th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no demarcation between the duties of Grade II
office and stores foremen and Grade III office and stores
foremen and no logical reason for any differential in grade
between the posts.
2. Both grades are subject to exactly the same criteria
from the O.P.W. including, personnel, wages, stores audit and
accounts.
3. Both Grades II and III office/stores foremen report
directly to their resident engineer, unlike other categories
who report through an intermediary.
4. Both Grades II and III office/stores foremen are
independent of each other and of all other grades of foremen.
5. An office/stores foreman Grade II does not supervise any
other Foremen.
6. The work carried out by Grade III office and stores
foremen is fully equivalent to that carried out by their
Grade II colleagues. Consequently, on the normal principles
of job evaluation, the workers are entitled to upgrading to
Grade II.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The posts in question are 4 office and stores foremen
Grade III, working in the arterial drainage maintenance
service. This claim is primarily concerned with the
maintenance area but regard must be had to the construction
area also.
2. Historically, the present grading structure dates from
the early 1960's and arises from the report of a consultancy
firm, Messrs. Associated Industrial Consultants Ltd. It is
important to remember that this report came at the beginning
of a period of exceptional activity in arterial drainage,
when there were four major schemes in operation or about to
start with a further programme of drainage works with a life
expectancy of 25 years up to the end of the 1980's proposed.
3. Prior to this time, the clerical/stores operations on
drainage were done by the grade of Storekeeper/Clerks. The
allocation of foreman status was done strictly on the basis
that the level of work in offices and stores on major
construction schemes was such that foreman status was
warranted and on four of the larger schemes, (Moy, Inny,
Killimor and Shannon Embankments) Grade II status was first
conceded in 1965. This practice continued whenever a major
scheme was undertaken and on all of the subsequent major
schemes (Boyne, Corrib, Maigue, Corrib/Mask, Boyle/Bonet and
Monaghan Blackwater) the practice was to have foreman, Grade
II, as the top grade of office and stores foreman, as a
reflection of the responsibility of the post. However, it
was always the case that Grade III was considered the
appropriate level for maintenance schemes.
4. There are 4 Grade II's at present serving on the two
remaining construction schemes in Monaghan and Roscommon and
their grading derives from the fact that they either carried
it from previous construction schemes or attained it by
virtue of the fact that they were working on a construction
scheme which involved the expenditure of millions of pounds
annually and workforces of up to 100 (these schemes are
relatively small compared to some previous ones but the Grade
II status applied nonetheless). There are four Grade II's on
maintenance schemes. However, each of these four carried
their Grade II status over from having previously worked on
large construction schemes. Grade II status was never
conceded as a result of working on a maintenance scheme.
5. This claim is on the basis that Grade III foremen are,
in effect, now doing exactly the same work as Grade II's and
carry the same report directly to the engineer, without there
being an intervening supervisory level. The O.P.W. does not
deny that this may in fact be so in some cases. However, the
Grade II foremen initially derived their grading when they
worked on large construction schemes and some first attained
this grading many years ago.
6. These were very large schemes and Grade II status was
warranted. It has been the policy of the O.P.W. for many
years that, when a Grade II foreman is assigned to a scheme
going onto maintenance, he holds his grading, even though it
has always been the stated policy of the O.P.W. that
maintenance schemes, because of the lower level of activity
involved in them, compared to even a small construction
scheme, warrant Grade III status. This was in large part a
recognition of the many years of service these workers had
given, often involving transfers around the country. It was
never an admission that their new level of work compared with
their former on the construction end - it was strictly an
acknowledgement of past service.
7. The grade of foreman Grade III is the actual promotion
grade from the lower grades of ganger, driver, general
operative. If these posts are regraded now, purely on the
basis of a recognition of the long service of the incumbents,
it will mean that future promotions to these posts would pass
over the basic promotion grade of Grade III onto the Grade II
scale. In O.P.W.'s view this would be totally unwarranted
and would have serious repercussions in other areas where
Grade III foreman are employed.
8. When those who currently hold the grade on construction
schemes cannot be guaranteed that they will be redeployed
within the drainage service, it would be unjust to regrade to
this level, others who enjoy secure employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties, does not find grounds for concession of the Union's
claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 1992 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ___________________________________
Deputy Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.