Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95173 Case Number: LCR14804 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FINGAL, SOUTH DUBLIN, DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCILS - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for 'officer status' for litter wardens.
Recommendation:
The Court is being asked to assess this post against other posts
within the County Council, based on selected elements of work
within the posts.
Ideally, any assessment of posts should involve consideration of
the total job content involved in the posts being assessed.
Given the information before the Court, the Court, does not
believe the Union's claim should be conceded in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95173 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14804
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FINGAL, SOUTH DUBLIN, DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCILS
AND
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for 'officer status' for litter
wardens.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim which concerns 6 litter wardens (2 from each County
Council) is on the grounds that the 6 have duties and
responsibilities similar to grades with 'officer status' in
Dublin and other local authorities. The claim was rejected
by the Councils who argued that, as there have been no change
in the duties of the post since it was established, there is
no basis for a change in status. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
followed, on the 1st of June, 1994, at which agreement was
not reached. The dispute was then referred to the Labour
Court, on the 27th of February, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 24th of April, 1995,
the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The nature of work carried out by litter wardens
(details supplied) requires that each warden must be
capable of working unsupervised, making decisions on the
spot that will not bring his employers into disrepute
and that can stand up to contest in Court. All wardens
have demonstrated that they are capable of fulfilling
these requirements. The Litter Act transferred the
initiative for prosecutions from the County Council Law
Agent to the litter wardens.
2. Litter wardens are required to have a full knowledge of
the Litter Act, 1982 and the Casual Trading Act, 1980
and the ability to enforce the provisions of these Acts,
where appropriate. They are also required to have a
working knowledge of several Acts of the Oireachtas and
Local Authority Bye-Laws, as well as relevant European
Acts. The wardens are authorised officers under the
Casual Trading Act, the Litter Act, the Roads Act and
European Waste Regulations. Authorised officer status
and its type of work is not undertaken by other non-
officer grades in any other sections of the Councils.
3. The distinction between the litter wardens and other
non-officers was highlighted by Dublin County Council in
its submission concerning a S.I.P.T.U. claim on behalf
of Park Rangers (LCR14162 refers). The Council rejected
a comparison between the grades, stating that litter
wardens have legal obligations which park rangers do not
have.
4. At conciliation, the Council advanced no reasonable
argument for rejecting the claim, merely voicing
concerns at the possible implications of the concession
of the claim.
5. From July, 1994, to January, 1995, the Local Government
Staff Negotiations Board became involved in the case,
expressing concern at the implications of the concession
of the claim, for other grades. The Union reiterated
its views on the distinct status of the litter wardens
and indicated its willingness to discuss a mechanism to
deal with an subsequent cases. The claim was, however,
despite the Union's proposals, eventually rejected.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing rate of pay for litter wardens is #224.85
per week rising to #242.90 per week. This rate of pay
was granted following the application of Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR10832 which took into account the
various duties and responsibilities of the position of
litter warden. There has been no significant change in
the duties or responsibilities of the position of litter
warden since LCR10832 and, accordingly, there is no
basis for an improvement in pay or other conditions of
employment.
2. The Union is seeking the application of 'officer status'
to the grade of litter warden on the basis that certain
of their duties are performed by others employed in
officer grades such as Water Pollution Inspector, Road
Safety Officer and Community Workers. The principal
tasks which the comparator grades perform, and to which
the Union is seeking to establish a relationship,
involve duties and responsibilities far in excess of
those carried out by litter wardens and it is for this
reason that these comparator grades are on significantly
higher rates of pay and carry 'officership'.
3. The three Dublin Authorities pay higher rates of pay
than those prevalent in Local Authorities elsewhere.
Litter wardens employed by these other Local Authorities
do not have 'officership status' as part of their
Conditions of Employment.
4. Concession of the Union's claim will precipitate a
series of consequential claims on behalf of litter
wardens employed by other Local Authorities.
Furthermore, it is the view of the Councils that further
consequential claims for the award of 'officership
status' will be made in respect of any grade which
carries the title of warden, for example traffic
wardens, park wardens etc. This in turn will disturb a
further set of established pay relativities and the
final outcome of this series of consequential claims
will be alarming.
5. The Union has argued that the litter wardens are
entitled to 'officership status' on the basis that the
Labour Court awarded 'officership status' to the grade
of Meter Reader/Sampler and also to the grade of
Engineer's Office Assistants. It is the Council's view
that the Court awarded officership to the grade of meter
reader/sampler on the basis of a long established pay
relationship between this grade and that of Water and
Sewer Inspectors (Recommendation No. LCR13731) and to
the Engineer's Office Assistants on the basis of a work
relationship between this grade and that of Clerical
Officers (LCR2706).
6. The creation of officer status is statutorily reserved
to the elected Council of Local Authorities and may only
be granted with the sanction of the Minister for the
Environment who has sole authority with regard to the
Declaration of Qualifications and Particulars for such
officer status. The Council is, therefore, of the
opinion that this matter should not come within the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court. If the Court issues a
recommendation on this matter in favour of the Union's
claim, the Union may use the high moral authority which
a Court Recommendation carries to bring pressure to bear
on both the elected Council and the Minister in
exercising their statutory functions in relation to the
creation of officer status. It is inappropriate for a
Labour Court Recommendation to be used in this manner,
which is outside the normal collective bargaining
process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is being asked to assess this post against other posts
within the County Council, based on selected elements of work
within the posts.
Ideally, any assessment of posts should involve consideration of
the total job content involved in the posts being assessed.
Given the information before the Court, the Court, does not
believe the Union's claim should be conceded in this case.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.