Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93670 Case Number: AD9412 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IMPACT |
Appeal by Roscommon County Council against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 95/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has given detailed consideration to the points made by
the parties involved in this appeal against the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 95/93.
Noting that the Chadwick Report referred to by the parties is the
only independent evaluation carried out on the job performed by
the claimant, the Court is satisfied that Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 95/93 (in its entirety) should be upheld and
accordingly the Court rejects the appeal and so decides.
The Court further considers that Clause 3 of PESP must apply and
accordingly the maximum to be paid to the claimant in the currency
of that agreement is 3%. The balance due should be paid in
accordance with the agreement concluded nationally for
implementing the special award to the Local Authority employees
outside the Dublin Area.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93670 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD.1294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Roscommon County Council against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 95/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
County Council as a Dog Warden in 1987. His current salary
is #10,283.11. In June 1993, the Union claimed that the
worker should be assimilated onto the same pay scale as Dog
Wardens employed by the I.S.P.C.A. (i.e. #13,749). The
I.S.P.C.A. Dog Wardens have an established pay relationship
with Local Authority Grade III Clerical Officers and a
current salary structure equivalent to 93.5% of the last 10
points of the C.O. scale. This was achieved following a job
evaluation of the work of Dog Wardens undertaken in November,
1991, by the Institute of Public Administration (Chadwick
Report), which was accepted by the I.S.P.C.A. (details
supplied to the Court). The County Council rejected the
Union's claim.
2. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 21st October, 1993
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
" 1. The Union and the Council meet to agree how best to
implement the details.
2. That the worker is assimilated onto the new scale
(see Report 19.2 and 30) on the corresponding point
principle (29).
3. That this is exclusive of his remuneration as a
Pound Keeper.
4. That the assimilation point is cognisant of the
total General Operatives award.
5. That his conditions of employment are modified (if
necessary) so that the council is his sole employer and,
appropriate reporting and supervisory systems are put in
place.
6. That these measures are taken on the expiry of
P.E.S.P."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.)
On the 29th November, 1993 the County Council appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
in Roscommon on the 1st February, 1994.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's rate of pay was set at the minimum of the
foremans' rate in the general operative structure on his
appointment. His present salary is made up as follows:
Basic Pay #195.66
Eating on site allowance # 5.65
He also receives #3,000 from the I.S.P.C.A. in respect of
Pound Keeping duties. This sum is refundable by the County
Council to the I.S.P.C.A. The worker's total salary is
#13,467. This rate compares more than favourably with the
pay of Dog Wardens employed by other Councils and similar
grades in Local Authorities. (Waterworks caretakers, traffic
wardens, gangers etc.)
2. The I.P.A. report contained no input from Local
Authorities and was not accepted by Roscommon County Council.
There is no valid comparison between the broad range of
Clerical Officer duties and those of Dog Wardens. The
comparison with other Local Authority general operative
grades is more valid and the salary of the claimant compares
favourably with those grades.
3. The claim, if conceded, can only be implemented in
accordance with Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. The date of
implementation of the 3% is currently being negotiated.
4. Concession of the claim will have serious repercussive
effects for Dog Wardens in other Local Authorities and for
the rates paid to other grades of outdoor staff.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay of the claimant was directly related to that of
Dog Wardens employed by the I.S.P.C.A. It should have been
adjusted automatically when the I.S.P.C.A. Dog Wardens
secured the increase in 1992.
2. The pay increase given to I.S.P.C.A. Dog Wardens was
based on an independent job evaluation conducted by the
I.P.A. The object of that assessment was to determine an
appropriate standard pay rate for Dog Wardens and remove
numerous anomalies. The I.P.A. Report clearly indicated that
the work of Dog Wardens had been substantially undervalued in
view of the range and responsibility of their duties (details
supplied to the Court). The Report consequently recommended
the increase of 93.5% of the Local Authority Clerical Officer
salary scale.
3. The Union has accepted the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and is seeking its implementation. Mayo
County Council recently recruited a Dog Warden and he has
been assimilated onto the I.S.P.C.A. scale of 93.5% of the
Local Authority Grade III Clerical Officer salary scale.
DECISION:
The Court has given detailed consideration to the points made by
the parties involved in this appeal against the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 95/93.
Noting that the Chadwick Report referred to by the parties is the
only independent evaluation carried out on the job performed by
the claimant, the Court is satisfied that Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 95/93 (in its entirety) should be upheld and
accordingly the Court rejects the appeal and so decides.
The Court further considers that Clause 3 of PESP must apply and
accordingly the maximum to be paid to the claimant in the currency
of that agreement is 3%. The balance due should be paid in
accordance with the agreement concluded nationally for
implementing the special award to the Local Authority employees
outside the Dublin Area.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th March, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.