Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92689 Case Number: LCR14050 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: REGIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE CORK - and - A WORKER;JOYCE AND COMPANY SOLICITORS |
Conditions of employment/wages.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions does not find
grounds for concession of the employee's claim and accordingly
rejects it.
The Court however considers that in the interests of creating more
harmonious relations the parties should discuss the complainant's
duties and his reporting and administrative procedures with a view
to ensuring that they are contributing to the efficient running of
the College and are clearly understood and adhered to by all
concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92689 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14050
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: REGIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE CORK
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY JOYCE AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Conditions of employment/wages.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the College on
17th February, 1986 as a full-time maintenance supervisor. The
worker is responsible for the upkeep of the college buildings, its
equipment and services and the grounds and sports facilities
associated with the College. The College caters for approximately
5000 students with approximately 2,000 other people using the
College facilities. The worker claims that the duties and
responsiblities of maintenance supervisor have increased
substantially since 1986 when the College catered for about 2,000
students.
In January, 1991, the worker submitted a claim for terms and
conditions of employment similar to workers in similar employment
in other institutions, such as the health boards. The College
rejected the claim. The worker referred the matter to the Labour
Court on 14th October, 1992 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court hearing took place on 25th
February, 1993. Prior to the Labour Court hearing the worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The attitude which management have adopted towards the
worker concerned has been unjust and intimidating and has been
the cause of extreme stress and hurt to the worker and his
family.
2. The authority of the worker concerned has been seriously
undermined due to a disorganised system where instructions are
being given by various people which leaves the worker
concerned with little or no control over the workers under his
supervision.
3. Workers under the supervision of the worker concerned are
constantly doing work not authorised or directed by the worker
concerned.
4. A system whereby a maintenance requisition form is
completed by the head of departments requiring work is rarely
if ever operated.
5. Repeated requests to improve the system have gone
unanswered.
6. The volume of work and the responsibilities of the
maintenance supervisor have increased considerably during the
course of his employment. There has been a substantial
increase in the number of students and teaching staff and
there is a number of extra buildings to supervise.
7. Conditions of employment should be agreed which are fair
to both parties and which would prevent any misunderstanding
in the future.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Department of Education would not be in favour of
establishing a relationship with maintenance supervisors
employed by health boards as it does not consider that the
maintenance supervisor in Cork RTC performs duties comparable
with those of a maintenance supervisor in the health boards.
2. A maintenance supervisor in the health boards has a
greater level of responsibility than his/her Cork RTC
counterpart. The maintenance supervisor in the health boards
is directly responsible for between 22 and 35 operatives
(depending on the Board to which he/she is attached).
The staff for which he/she would have responsibility would
include such diverse grades as foreman craftsman, carpenters,
painters, plumbers, masons, fitters, electricians and general
operatives. A maintenance supervisor in the health boards may
also have a number of hospitals/centres in his/her area of
responsibility. The Department therefore considers that the
Cork RTC and health board supervisors' responsibilities are
not comparable.
3. The Department further contends that the maintenance
supervisor in Cork RTC is not being asked to perform duties
which carry more responsibility than those laid down upon
commencement of duty in February, 1986. Therefore it wishes
to refute the claimant's contention that there has been an
alteration in the conditions of employment for the maintenance
supervisor.
4. There has been no change in the worker's conditions of
employment since his appointment in 1986. The Department
agreed, with the worker's approval, to relate the maintenance
supervisor's salary scale in Cork RTC to one of craftsman plus
differential as a result of a Labour Court conciliation
conference in 1988. This differential has been maintained.
The Department does not feel that the post of maintenance
supervisor should be reviewed.
5. In conclusion the Department contends that there has not
been any alteration in the duties/conditions of employment of
the maintenance supervisor in Cork RTC. Accordingly, the
Department is opposed to any concession on the claim and the
Court is asked to reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions does not find
grounds for concession of the employee's claim and accordingly
rejects it.
The Court however considers that in the interests of creating more
harmonious relations the parties should discuss the complainant's
duties and his reporting and administrative procedures with a view
to ensuring that they are contributing to the efficient running of
the College and are clearly understood and adhered to by all
concerned.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
29th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.