Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92722 Case Number: LCR13965 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DEPARTMENT OF MARINE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the regrading of 4 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the written and
verbal submissions from the parties and also considered the
relative affect the re-grading proposals have on the claimants.
The Court was also made aware of the history of the negotiations
and in particular the conciliation conference of the 20th August
and subsequent local discussions.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that
(a) Management agree to implement the proposal as set out in the
I.R.O.s letter of the 20th August, 1992 to which they had
previously agreed. In addition they should honour agreements
reached locally.
(b) With regards to the four employees on whose behalf the Union
made special submission the Court notes that it is agreed in
principle by the parties that no individual can suffer a loss
as a result of regrading. The Court is satisfied that the
scheme as proposed is being applied in a correct manner to
these four claimants and accordingly does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92722 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13965
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF MARINE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the regrading of 4 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1991, under the auspices of the Joint Industrial
Council for State Industrial Employees, the parties reached
agreement on a major re-structuring of pay rates and grades
concerning general operatives in Government Departments. The pay
structure, which was based on Construction Industry operatives
rates, is now related to grades in Local Authorities. A majority
of workers have been successfully assimilated into the appropriate
grades, but approximately 13 general operatives employed by the
Department at Dun Laoghaire are in dispute with the Department
about their gradings. The issue was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and, following a conciliation conference
which was held on the 20th August, 1992, the Industrial Relations
Officer put forward a detailed set of proposals which was
recommended for acceptance by both parties. All but 4 general
operatives have been placed on their appropriate gradings and the
present position relating to these workers is as follows:
Departments' Offer Union's Claim
WORKER A General Operative Light Equipment Operator Rate
WORKER B General Operative Light Equipment Operator Rate
WORKER C Light Equipment Operator Plant "A" Operator Rate
WORKER D Light Equipment Operator Plant "A" Operator Rate
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 1st December, 1992. A Court hearing
was held on the 8th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By letter dated 27th March, 1992 the Department offered
workers A and B the light equipment operator rate but
subsequently revised the offer to the lower grade. The
Department should confirm the offer of the 27th March.
2. With regard to workers C and D, the Department in a letter
dated 12th December, 1991, outlined how the new agreement
would be implemented and stated inter alia that an employee on
a basic rate of #154.88 plus differential of #8.97 p.w. would
be placed on the plant A operator scale. These 2 workers were
in receipt of this basic and differential. The Union's claim
is for implementation of the Department's offer of 12th
December, 1991.
3. The workers concerned perform their duties with total
flexibility and considerable efficiencies have been achieved
in recent years with significant reductions in staff numbers.
The cost of the Union's claim is not significant and will not
place a financial burden on the Department.
DEPARTMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Department has examined the duties performed by the
workers concerned in great detail. On the basis of that
examination and the provisions of the Agreement each post has
been appropriately graded. Where higher duties are performed
the higher rate is paid for that period. The level of
increase being offered is in line with that being paid to
general operatives under the agreement generally.
2. The Union is seeking gradings which cannot be justified on
the basis of the duties concerned, and is claiming the payment
of higher rates on a permanent basis, notwithstanding that
higher duties may only be performed on a temporary basis.
There has been an overall increase in earnings.
3. The Agreement has been accepted by both parties. The
gradings now claimed would contravene important provisions of
the Agreement and if conceded would have far reaching
implications throughout the State Sector, which would give
rise to pressure for regradings in other departments with
costly consequences.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the written and
verbal submissions from the parties and also considered the
relative affect the re-grading proposals have on the claimants.
The Court was also made aware of the history of the negotiations
and in particular the conciliation conference of the 20th August
and subsequent local discussions.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that
(a) Management agree to implement the proposal as set out in the
I.R.O.s letter of the 20th August, 1992 to which they had
previously agreed. In addition they should honour agreements
reached locally.
(b) With regards to the four employees on whose behalf the Union
made special submission the Court notes that it is agreed in
principle by the parties that no individual can suffer a loss
as a result of regrading. The Court is satisfied that the
scheme as proposed is being applied in a correct manner to
these four claimants and accordingly does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
22nd February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.