Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93364 Case Number: LCR14292 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FOTA WILDLIFE PARK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning two issues:- (i) Claim for pay parity for wildlife wardens at Fota, with park-rangers employed by the Office of Public Works (O.P.W.); (ii) Claim for 3% increase in basic pay under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
1992
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93364 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FOTA WILDLIFE PARK
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning two issues:-
(i) Claim for pay parity for wildlife wardens at Fota, with
park-rangers employed by the Office of Public Works (O.P.W.);
(ii) Claim for 3% increase in basic pay under Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. PAY PARITY:
The claim for pay parity was made in October 1989, and was
the subject of a Labour Court hearing in February, 1990. The
Court found that there was merit in the claim but that its
concession would be contrary to the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery. The Court recommended that the
parties should discuss the matter at the first available
opportunity.
Further conciliation conferences followed and agreement was
reached on the payment of a 7% pay-increase (in addition to
any national wage agreement) for both 1991 and 1992, the
position to be reviewed in mid-1992.
Local discussions resumed on the 8th of June, 1992,
and the Company made proposals concerning its pay-structure
by letter on the 11th of November, 1992. A conciliation
conference followed on the 9th of March, 1993, at which
agreement was not reached. The Company is proposing
pay-increases over the period to January, 1995, with a
commitment to discuss, in June, 1995, any pay-differentials
which exist between its rates and O.P.W. rates, outstanding
problems to be redressed in December, 1995. This is
unacceptable to the Union.
CLAUSE 3, P.E.S.P.
In return for the 3% increase, the Company is seeking
concession of :-
(i) enhanced recording procedures;
(ii) earlier starting-time on Sundays during winter
(9.30 a.m. rather than 10.00 a.m.).
The Union indicated its preparedness to accept the conditions
attached to the implementation of Clause 3. The Company,
however, offered the 3% as part of an overall settlement of
the dispute, which was unacceptable to the Union.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th of June,
1993. The Court investigated the dispute, in Cork, on the 27th of
October, 1993, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim for parity has been ongoing since 1989, and
while it appears that the Company improved the wage-rates
significantly over the past four years, it must be borne in
mind that the rates which first applied were in compliance
with the terms of the Joint Labour Committee for Farm
Workers. These rates were entirely inappropriate to the work
and conditions of wardens in Fota Wildlife Park and were
merely agreed to in the start-up of the operation.
2. The Court recognised that fact in 1990 (LCR 12821) and
Fota Wildlife Park is now a far more expanded operation than
it was in the early years. The wardens are now expected to
sit the City and Guilds of London examinations in Animal
Management, such are the increases in their responsibilities
and skills required.
3. Parity with the O.P.W. will at best give workers the
wage they deserve for the work which they carry out. Working
with wild animals is dangerous, since they are unpredictable.
It requires workers who are trained and vigilant, to deal
with them.
4. It is unreasonable of the Company to quote dwindling
attendance figures at Dublin Zoo - attendance figures in Fota
are continually rising.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer addresses the Union's claim in a
fair manner. It provides for the elimination of the
difference in basic rates between those applying in the
O.P.W. and Fota, in a sensible manner. Because Fota Wildlife
Park cannot make a commitment to pay a rate of pay that may
apply in the future in another organisation, it has estimated
a likely rate, aimed to achieve that rate and has provided
for a revision in 1995 should a higher rate obtain in the
O.P.W. (details supplied to the Court).
2. In relation to differentials, the Union is seeking the
rates of pay which apply in the O.P.W., while retaining the
differentials which apply at Fota, as they are higher. They
are seeking the best of both worlds. As a compromise, the
Company proposes differentials higher than the O.P.W., but
lower than in Fota (details supplied).
3. The Union has also refused to accept the O.P.W. single
rate, as it existed when the claim was initially made, and
wishes to benefit from the introduction of a pay-scale once
one has been introduced in the O.P.W. (details supplied). In
fact a scale was introduced in January of this year.
However, to expect the Company to bear the additional cost of
introducing a pay-scale in addition to the already
significant costs of bringing the rate into line with that of
the O.P.W. is unrealistic. The Company cannot afford such
additional costs.
4. Fota Wildlife Part is a limited Company with "charity
status". It is a project of the Royal Zoological Society of
Ireland. The majority of its funding comes from admissions
to the park and receipts from park facilities such as the
tour train and shops. In the years 1989-1992 between 10% and
15% of its funding came from donations and sponsors (details
supplied).
5. Because of the dependence on visitors for the majority
of funding, continuous re-investment in the Park is required
to maintain visitor numbers. Any cash surplus is reinvested
in the Park. This is to prevent a situation similar to that
which occurred in Dublin Zoo where, as there was no surplus
for re-investment in the zoo over the period 1986-1990,
visitor numbers dropped from 600,000 to 400,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the proposals as contained in the letter
on 11th November, 1992 be accepted subject to the following:-
(1) That parity with the first point of the O.P.W. scale be
achieved on or before the 1st of January, 1995;
(2) That the issue be discussed in June 1994 to ensure
parity will be achieved, as per the assumptions made.
In the event that parity is not being achieved, the
parties to agree arrangements to redress the problem;
(3) The differentials proposed by the Company to apply;
(4) The 3% Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. to be applied from June,
1992.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1993. Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.