Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93435 Case Number: AD9378 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (U.C.D.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Employer against Rights Commisioner's Recommendation No. CW153/93 concerning the rate of pay for a Groundsman.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find that grounds have been established to justify the
setting aside of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly, the recommendation stands but should only be
implemented on the expiry of P.E.S.P. as it applies to the
claimant.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93435 APPEAL DECISION NO AD7893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (U.C.D.)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Employer against Rights Commisioner's
Recommendation No. CW153/93 concerning the rate of pay for a
Groundsman.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment in June, 1973 and is
employed by UCD as a groundsman on the athletic track. On
26th February, 1993 the Union submitted a claim to the
University that the worker's duties, with his additional
responsibilities, were similar to those of a storekeeper and
that he should be paid the rate applicable to a grade 13A in
Dublin Corporation. The University, while accepting that the
worker held a unique position from the other groundsmen, did
not accept that it warranted a higher rate of pay.
2. The Union referred the claim to the Rights Commissioner
and a hearing was held on the 28th June, 1993 and 30th June,
1993. The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation, issued
on the 30th June, 1993, recommended:-
"that the College offers and the Union accepts a
differential of 5% be applied to this position with
effect from the date of this recommendation".
3. The University appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on 20th July, 1993. The
Court heard the appeal on the 1st September, 1993.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the four other athletic tracks in Ireland a single
member of staff has similar responsibilities to the claimant.
In none of the five locations are any additional payments
made.
2. The duties, while unique to the claimant's post, could
not be regarded as storekeeper duties.
3. No special qualifications or skills are required over
and above those applying to general ground staff.
4. The post held by the claimant is in itself rewarding in
that it is an interesting post which attracts opportunities
for increased earnings.
5. The claim is a cost increasing claim and is precluded
under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The duties of the claimant are unique in U.C.D. He is
responsible for the maintenance, care and issuing of all the
equipment concerned with the Belfield Athletic Track.
2. The claimant has greater responsibilities than the other
ground staff.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find that grounds have been established to justify the
setting aside of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly, the recommendation stands but should only be
implemented on the expiry of P.E.S.P. as it applies to the
claimant.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th September, 1993 ---------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman