Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95293 Case Number: LCR14896 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning pay relativity.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties, finds that the claim is cost-increasing and consequently
contrary to the terms of the PCW.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95293 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14896
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning pay relativity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed as a plant
maintenance aide in the University of Limerick. He was
originally employed at Thomond College of Education prior to
it merging with the University of Limerick and was appointed
to the maintenance post in 1985. The rate of pay for the
post which was agreed at the time was set at the Local
Authority craftsmen's rate less #1. The maintenance aide
does not progress along the Local Authority craftsman
incremental scale and, therefore, the rate is fixed at the
bottom end of the scale. The Union claims that the full
incremental scale should be applied to the worker less the #1
differential at each point. Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and conciliation conferences were held on the 8th November,
1994 and 25th January, 1995. Agreement was not possible and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th May,
1995. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th
September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the employee concerned worked at Thomond College he
assisted the maintenance technician who reported to the
maintenance engineer. Following the merger the
technician post was not filled and the worker concerned
now carries out most of the duties formerly associated
with that post. The plant maintenance technician had an
appropriate incremental scale. The worker is the only
employee where rate of pay is not on scale rate.
2. The worker's duties and responsibilities have increased
considerably since his appointment due to the changes in
maintenance staffing. The incremental scale is
appropriate for such a post where the employee
undertakes additional responsibility. Instead of
assisting the plant maintenance technician, the worker
now reports directly to the Buildings Superintendent.
He also undertakes a wide range of skilled technical
duties and has gained the appropriate skills which
allows him to undertake these duties through on the job
experience and external courses. The worker is the only
University employee working directly on maintenance. He
works alongside craftsmen employed by outside
contractors when engaged in his general maintenance
duties and should be treated accordingly.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rate of pay which was agreed between the parties in
the 1980's had regard to the nature of the work carried
out (minor maintenance) and to the fact that the aides
were not qualified craftsmen. The introduction of an
incremental scale extending the flat rate of pay beyond
its current position would take the rate into the
craftsmens' scale. This is not acceptable as the
qualitative nature of the work is non-craft. Neither is
the claimant a qualified craftsman.
2. The rate of pay of the work concerned is #229.49 per
week. This is significantly greater than the general
operative rates in the sector. He is remunerated at a
level considerably in excess of what the function
attracts in its main area of "analogue". A craftsmens'
analogue award of #6.81 per week is currently being
finalised in the Local Authorities and Health Boards
effective from 1st April, 1995. The claimant will be
paid this award when agreements are concluded.
3. Concession of the claim would have severe repercussive
effects in the local Authority and other areas resulting
in consequential pay claims on behalf of craftsmen.
4. The claim is for an increase of 8.7% and contrary to the
terms of the P.C.W. which places a limit of 3% on claims
for arbitration.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties, finds that the claim is cost-increasing and consequently
contrary to the terms of the PCW.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th September, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.