Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93202 Case Number: LCR14216 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
SUBJECT: 1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, particularly that of the
claimant, the Court does not find grounds to conclude that the
grading of the claimant is incorrect or unfair. In view of the
various evaluations of his job, including the joint
union/management one, and having regard to the additional benefits
applying to him, the Court does not consider that further
evaluation is now appropriate. Accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93202 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14216
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment on the 19th July, 1972 as
a temporary, part-time caretaker of water and sewerage
services and dumping ground at Newtownmountkennedy. On 1st
March, 1979, the worker was appointed in a permanent capacity
as caretaker with remuneration at assistant road overseer's
rate. In 1986, the issue of the worker's rate of pay was
raised by the union with the Council. The County Engineer in
his report dated 17th June, 1983, recommended that the worker
be assimilated into the Grade II Caretaker scale. In 1990,
the County Engineer again examined the position and in his
report dated 25th September, 1990 indicated that he saw no
basis for increasing the worker's rate of pay as there had
been no increase in his responsibilities. The Union was
seeking the payment of the Overseer's rate and agreed at a
conciliation conference on 25th February, 1992 to a joint
union/management evalvation of the worker's job. This joint
evaluation was carried out on 14th May, 1992 and agreed that
Grade III would be the appropriate grade for the worker's job
were it to be assimilated within the Local Authority's
national grading structure for water and sewerage caretakers.
LCR14216
2. The Union had sought to have the job evaluated against
the entire new grading structure and did not accept the
conclusion of the joint evaluation. The matter was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a number of
conciliation conferences were held. The Council by letter
dated 6th June, 1991 confirmed that it regarded the worker as
having the status of an Assistant Overseer on a personal rate
and saw no reason to increase his rate of pay. On the 23rd
March, 1993, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court
under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court investigated the matter on the 8th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is an appointed Assistant Road Overseer.
2. When the new salary structure was introduced the Council
decided which grade the workers were to be assimilated onto.
3. There is no agreed mechanism for evaluation where
disagreement exists in relation to Council's decisions on
assimilation.
4. It was unfair to confine the examination of the worker's
job to the caretaking grades.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council examined the question of the pay scale
appropriate to the worker on a number of occasions
2. The Council is satisfied that the rate of pay being paid
to the worker is appropriate.
LCR14216
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, particularly that of the
claimant, the Court does not find grounds to conclude that the
grading of the claimant is incorrect or unfair. In view of the
various evaluations of his job, including the joint
union/management one, and having regard to the additional benefits
applying to him, the Court does not consider that further
evaluation is now appropriate. Accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th October, 1993. Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./A.L.
___________________________________
Chairman.
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mr.
Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.