Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92357 Case Number: LCR13846 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND FINANCE - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 22 "higher-order" attendants for parity with class aides in the City of Dublin V.E.C. (C.D.V.E.C.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has come to the conclusion that the work of the claimants and
that of Class Aides is very similar. The Court, therefore,
recommends that the claimants be linked with Class Aides for the
purpose of establishing pay levels. It further recommends that
any adjustments arising out of the implementation of this
Recommendation be made in accordance with the terms of the
P.E.S.P.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92357 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13846
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND FINANCE
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 22 "higher-order" attendants
for parity with class aides in the City of Dublin V.E.C.
(C.D.V.E.C.).
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, an independent assessor was appointed to report on
the role of attendant staff in the Regional Technical Colleges.
In his report, which was published in 1988, he identified a group
whose duties were more closely related to teaching and laboratory
activities. They were designated as "higher order" attendants.
In March, 1989, the parties agreed rates of pay for the "higher
order" attendants and also the numbers who were to receive the
higher rate. They were placed on the Local Authority caretaker
grade in the V.E.C.s, (outside Dublin and Cork). In February,
1991, the Group of Unions submitted a claim for parity of wages
between the 22 designated "higher order" attendants and class
aides in the C.D.V.E.C. Management rejected the claim. The issue
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the 16th
December, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the 3rd
June, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 16th
June, 1992. A Court hearing was held on the 29th October, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have made a significant contribution
to the teaching and laboratory activities of the R.T.C.s
within the past four years. The assessor's report dealt
solely with R.T.C.s outside Dublin and Cork and made no
recommendations or comparisons with similar staff employed in
Dublin and Cork. The duties and responsibilities of "higher
order" attendants and class aides are similar. This is
demonstrated in the comparison between job descriptions for
the two grades (details supplied to the Court).
2. The technological sector of education is treated as a
group of similar institutions for the purpose of courses,
qualifications and now has an identical legal framework. This
has long been recognised in the national rates of pay which
apply to academic, technical and administrative staff. It is
also demonstrated through the Regional Technical Colleges Act,
1992 and the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992 which
provide a new legislative framework reflecting the development
of C.D.V.E.C. Colleges and R.T.C.s along similar lines. The
maintenance of "local" rates of pay for R.T.C. staff is
inappropriate particularly as a new R.T.C. (Tallaght) has now
been established in the Dublin area.
3. The Unions' claim is not to overturn the settlement of
1989 but to adequately reflect the evolution of the functions
of the R.T.C.s and their effect on the support staff of these
Colleges. The Unions accepted that the "higher order"
attendant posts be considered in the caretaker/attendant
chain. It does not seek to remove them from that chain but
set them in a wider context than was considered in the report.
The most suitable context is the technological education
sector as a whole and as class aides have a higher rate of pay
than the similar group in R.T.C.'s ("higher order" attendants)
the claim is for parity with the class aides..
DEPARTMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The assessor's report, concluded as recently as October,
1988, recommended that certain attendant posts should be
regraded to take account of enhanced functions, mainly related
to classroom duties. The numbers involved and remuneration
were agreed by the parties and implemented in 1989. There has
been no substantive or demonstrable change in the duties of
the "higher order" attendants in the intervening period. The
change in the status of the R.T.C.s does not affect the duties
of the workers concerned.
2. The assessor considered the possibility of putting the
"higher order" attendants in the craft assistant/technician/
technical assistant chain, which would put them on a par with
class aides; however his report clearly places "higher order"
attendants in the caretaker/attendant category. The duties
and responsibilities of the workers concerned are not
equivalent to those of class aides who are employed in
specialist colleges while the R.T.C.s provide a more general
range of courses.
3. Concession of the claim would lead to repercussive claims
from other grades such as caretakers and attendants. Without
prejudice to the Departments' position on the issue, the claim
is cost-increasing and is precluded under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has come to the conclusion that the work of the claimants and
that of Class Aides is very similar. The Court, therefore,
recommends that the claimants be linked with Class Aides for the
purpose of establishing pay levels. It further recommends that
any adjustments arising out of the implementation of this
Recommendation be made in accordance with the terms of the
P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
13th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.