Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94241 Case Number: LCR14474 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the salary scale of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends that the College agree to pay the claimant on the
Executive II scale with a point of entry on 2nd point (#15,578 in
October, 1993) with effect from 1st October, 1993.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94241 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14474
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the salary scale of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was appointed to the staff of the College as
a carpenter on the 6th January, 1965. On the 1st
October, 1989, he was appointed joinery chargehand and
in October 1993, he was promoted to supervisor and
placed on the eighth point of the Executive III scale
with retrospection to 1st October, 1992. The Union
contended that the worker replaced another supervisor
who was on the maximum of the Executive Grade I salary
scale and sought the placement of the worker on the
first point of that salary scale. It subsequently
indicated that it would accept placement on the
Executive II salary scale. The College asserted that
the worker was not carrying out the same duties as the
man he was supposed to have replaced and therefore a
salary on the Executive Grade I scale was not
acceptable.
2. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on
21st January, 1994. The College argued that it had
procedures and structures in place governing the
promotion of executive staff but agreed to make a strong
recommendation for the worker's promotion to Executive
Grade II when the matter comes up for review in June,
1994. If this recommendation is accepted, the College
undertook to place him on an additional point on that
scale to compensate for the fact that he was working as
a supervisor in an acting capacity for one year.
Agreement could not be reached and the issue was
referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the
Labour Court on 25th April, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute on 1st June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker took over the duties of his supervisor, along
with his own, when the supervisor retired. The College
has not appointed another chargehand following the
supervisor's retirement.
2. The supervisor was on Executive scale I prior to his
retirement and the worker therefore should be on the
same scale.
3. The College has gained financially as the worker is now
doing the work of two people.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Promotion from chargehand to Executive II is not in
keeping with normal College procedures and no other
building supervisor has been promoted directly from
chargehand to Executive II. All Buildings Office
Supervisors are appointed on the Executive III scale.
2. Building Office Supervisors can only progress from
Executive III to Executive II on the recommendation of
the review committee.
3. The worker's duties and responsibilities are not
equivalent to those of the previous supervisor.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends that the College agree to pay the claimant on the
Executive II scale with a point of entry on 2nd point (#15,578 in
October, 1993) with effect from 1st October, 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.