Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95338 Case Number: LCR14876 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (O.P.W.) - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT |
Status of Employment
Recommendation:
It was clear to the Court that there had been confusion or lack of
clarity in defining what was on offer to the claimants in relation
to their status on transfer to the O.P.W.
It is clear that each side has a different interpretation of the
discussions held and, particularly, the definition of Civil
Servant as outlined at these discussions.
For consideration by the Court was whether the O.P.W., based on
the letter sent in error, should be forced to make the claimants
Civil Servants (unestablished) or whether the posts held by the
claimants are of a higher value than that of Supervisor Grade.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court:-
(a) does not recommend concession of Civil Servant
(unestablished) status for the claimants.
(b) recommends that the differential of #49.93, held currently by
the Manager, should be maintained at this fixed level on an
ongoing basis for the individual concerned.
Given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding this case, the
Court further recommends that both claimants be allowed keep their
job titles when agreeing their new responsibilities, and that
sensitivity be shown by the O.P.W. in discussing the new
contracts.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95338 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14876
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (O.P.W.)
AND
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT)
SUBJECT:
Status of Employment
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns the employment status of two workers in
Castletown House. The building was taken over by the O.P.W.
on 1st January, 1994, from the Castletown House Foundation.
The Union is seeking that both workers be accorded the status
of Civil Servants (unestablished).
On 5th January, 1994, the two workers received letters from
the O.P.W. stating that they would be regarded as Civil
Servants (unestablished) from 1st January, 1994. The O.P.W.
maintains that the letters were sent in error and that the
person who signed the letters was not authorised to do so.
The workers were to be regarded as industrial workers, or
non-established Civil Servants. The Union claims that the
O.P.W. should honour the commitment given in the letters of
5th January, 1994.
One worker managed Castletown House when it was run by the
Foundation. She continues in that role but is linked to the
O.P.W. grade of Supervisor of Guides. The O.P.W. has agreed
to pay an allowance (approximately #50 per week), equal to
the difference between her salary paid by the Foundation and
the maximum of the scale of Supervisor of Guides. The other
worker was employed in accounts/administration but is now
linked to the O.P.W. grade of Storekeeper Clerk, Grade 2.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
(L.R.C.) and a conciliation conference took place on 12th
May, 1995. No agreement was reached and the dispute was
referred by the L.R.C. to the Labour Court in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on 2nd
June, 1995. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th
August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In consultation with the O.P.W. prior to 1st January, 1994,
the workers were given to believe that they would become
Civil Servants (unestablished). The letter of 5th January,
1994, confirmed this. It was not until October 1994, that
there was any question regarding their status.
2. The descriptions of the two workers - Manager, Castletown
House and Secretary/Accounts Officer, Castletown House - do
not fit into the category of industrial workers. There are a
number of options open to the O.P.W. (including confined
competitions) which could lead to the two workers being
designated as Civil Servants (unestablished) - (details
supplied to the Court).
O.P.W.'s ARGUMENTS:
1. At a meeting on 8th November, 1993, the workers were told
that they would be employed as non-established Civil
Servants. The error contained in the letters of 5th January,
1994, regarding their status, was confirmed personally to
them by the writer on approximately 21st January, 1994. The
O.P.W. does not have the authority to appoint workers as
Civil Servants. Only the Civil Service Commission has the
authority to do so, as per the Civil Service Commissioner's
Act, 1956.
2. The O.P.W. allowed the Manager to retain her wage at the time
of the takeover. This is approximately #2500 per annum more
than the maximum of the grade to which she is now linked -
Supervisor of Guides. The duties of the two workers are
considerably less demanding than those of the grades to which
they are linked. The responsibility of the Manager has been
reduced significantly since the O.P.W. took over in January,
1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
It was clear to the Court that there had been confusion or lack of
clarity in defining what was on offer to the claimants in relation
to their status on transfer to the O.P.W.
It is clear that each side has a different interpretation of the
discussions held and, particularly, the definition of Civil
Servant as outlined at these discussions.
For consideration by the Court was whether the O.P.W., based on
the letter sent in error, should be forced to make the claimants
Civil Servants (unestablished) or whether the posts held by the
claimants are of a higher value than that of Supervisor Grade.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court:-
(a) does not recommend concession of Civil Servant
(unestablished) status for the claimants.
(b) recommends that the differential of #49.93, held currently by
the Manager, should be maintained at this fixed level on an
ongoing basis for the individual concerned.
Given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding this case, the
Court further recommends that both claimants be allowed keep their
job titles when agreeing their new responsibilities, and that
sensitivity be shown by the O.P.W. in discussing the new
contracts.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.