Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93178 Case Number: LCR14055 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of pay for Lock-keepers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends that the offer made by the Office - i.e.
payment of the General Operative rate applicable to Local
Authority Workers plus 10% should be accepted by the workers
concerned. The Court further recommends that the offer of
retrospection to the 1st January, 1993 be adjusted to provide for
an additional lump sum of #200 to take account of the delay in
reaching a conclusion on this issue.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93178 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14055
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay for Lock-keepers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Lock-keepers are employed by the O.P.W. on the Shannon
Navigation System. They are responsible for the regulation of
traffic through locks and movable bridges and for the collection
of toll charges. A dispute concerning the Lock-keepers' rate of
pay, inter alia, was the subject of a Labour Court investigation
in July, 1992, (L.C.R. 13752). The Court recommended, inter alia,
that the O.P.W. "implements the Local Authority Rate of pay in
accordance with the terms of L.C.R. 3726".
L.C.R. 3726 was issued in 1975 and set the rate of pay for
Lock-keepers at the County Council General Operative Rate, plus
10% for unsocial hours and extra responsibilities.
The parties failed to reach agreement on the implementation of the
pay element of L.C.R. 13752 and referred the dispute to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the
24th of February, 1993 at which the Union Committee undertook to
recommend the acceptance of the I.R.O.'s proposals that 'the
workers be assimilated in the same manner as General Operatives
under the National Agreement on rationalisation of Pay Rates and
Grading Structures of C.I.F.-related grades'.
The O.P.W. required the endorsement of the Labour Court to this
approach before it could give consideration and agreement.
On the 6th of April, 1993, the O.P.W. offered the General
Operatives Rate of Pay, plus 10% retrospective to 1/1/93. The
Union however, sought retrospection to November, 1991. Agreement
was not reached, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on the 16th of March, 1993 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 8th of April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Lock-keepers basic pay (i.e. inclusive of 10% premium)
compares unfavourably with the basic rate for General
Operatives and General Operatives (Light Equipment) on the
rationalised scales (details supplied to the Court). The
Lock-keepers should be included in the recent rationalisation
agreement, which placed the General Operative on the
appropriate local authority scale from the 1st of November,
1991.
2. The Lock-keepers have willingly implemented changes in
toll-charges. These changes will lead to a substantial boost
to the revenues generated at locks, and will cover the
financing of the increase in Lock-keepers' rate of pay.
O.P.W.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The O.P.W. is not in breach of any agreement with the
Lock-keepers. There is a pay relationship between
Lock-keepers and Local Authority workers, not pay parity.
2. The award granted to Local Authority workers in 1981 was
not applicable to the Lock-keepers and there is therefore no
case for the retrospective application of the award now.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends that the offer made by the Office - i.e.
payment of the General Operative rate applicable to Local
Authority Workers plus 10% should be accepted by the workers
concerned. The Court further recommends that the offer of
retrospection to the 1st January, 1993 be adjusted to provide for
an additional lump sum of #200 to take account of the delay in
reaching a conclusion on this issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
28th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.