Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93541 Case Number: LCR14280 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Pay increase.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions concurs with the
view of the employer that the claimant does not supervise in the
rehabilitation/training/caring sense. The court, however, does
consider she has a supervisory role and is inappropriately graded
for the work she carries out and for which she was employed.
However the Court accepts that to address this situation would be
cost increasing and accordingly debarred under the terms of the
PESP. The Court recommends that at the first opportunity the
parties discuss the situation and seek to reach agreement on an
appropriate grading/rate of pay to be applicable to the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93541 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14280
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed by the
Rehabilitation Institute at its centre in Sligo. The Union
states that the worker is employed as a "canteen/supervisor
cleaner" but that she should be paid at the rate of an
"operative/assistant supervisor". The Company states that
the worker's job description is "canteen/cleaning" and that
she is paid accordingly.
2. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission on 18th January, 1993. A number of conciliation
conferences were held but no agreement was reached. On 16th
September, 1993, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 20th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's current rate of pay is #143.25 per week.
She has been employed by the Institute for 14 years. The
worker's job is the same as an "operative/assistant
supervisor". Her pay should be #212.09 per week.
2. The worker's duties cover far more than her official
status of "canteen/cleaning". She is responsible for 130
trainees during a total of 10 tea/lunch breaks each day. The
worker is also responsible for the training of 3 trainees on
a full-time basis. The worker's responsibilities are the
same as those of an assistant supervisor in a retail unit
(i.e. Rehab shop). The only difference is that the worker is
responsible to the regional manager and not a unit
supervisor.
3. The worker is also responsible for ordering stock for
the canteen and the preparation of menus. In other Rehab
centres this work is done by a chef.
4. The Company maintains that the claim is in breach of the
P.E.S.P. The Union stated prior to the conclusion of
negotiations on clause 3 that certain claims would be made.
The Company agreed to this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The status of the worker concerned is
"canteen/cleaning". Her rate of pay is #143.25 for a 37.1/2
hour week. This is the agreed rate under clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. An increase for the worker concerned would mean
similar claims from other workers doing the same job.
2. The worker concerned is responsible for cleaning duties
at the Sligo centre and supervision of the canteen at break
times. She has the assistance of three full-time trainees
during the day.
3. The worker is not responsible for the
supervision/training of trainees. The centre in Sligo only
provides a canteen service. The worker has no more
responsibility than "canteen/cleaning" workers in other Rehab
centres.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions concurs with the
view of the employer that the claimant does not supervise in the
rehabilitation/training/caring sense. The court, however, does
consider she has a supervisory role and is inappropriately graded
for the work she carries out and for which she was employed.
However the Court accepts that to address this situation would be
cost increasing and accordingly debarred under the terms of the
PESP. The Court recommends that at the first opportunity the
parties discuss the situation and seek to reach agreement on an
appropriate grading/rate of pay to be applicable to the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th December, 1993 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.