FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ATHLONE COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW340/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim that there is an agreed parity between the salary of the worker, who is a Youth Development Officer, and the salary of the Youth Officer (Out of School Activities Officer) of Dublin VEC.
The worker became permanent in her post in 1983. At present the Union claims her salary is £16,855. The Council maintains it is £17,779. She is seeking a salary of £25,111. Her salary is funded entirely by the Department of Education. The worker claims that her salary has been out of line since 1989. She has received no increments since then, apart from the National Agreements.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on 2nd February, 1996. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union and the Council agree a programme to establish the job specification of the post and an appropriate analogue through discussion and negotiation."
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on 15th April, 1996, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th June, 1996 in Athlone.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Council employs 18 people, all of whom are paid the appropriate and agreed salary. The worker's job is highly responsible yet she is paid £8,256 less than the Youth Officer in Dublin VEC who has the same number of years experience (14) as the worker. (A list of the worker's duties was supplied to the Court).
2. Two of the worker's previous managers confirmed in writing that there was parity between the salary of the worker and the Youth Officer (Dublin VEC). The Council reneged on the contractual obligation it made with the worker. The present manager has also indicated that there is parity between the 2 pay scales. This information was not available to the Rights Commissioner at the hearing on 2nd February, 1996.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's contract, which was formulated on 30th January, 1984, had no linked salary grade as her job title was unique. The Board of Community Services did, however, try to grade her salary. The Council made numerous representations to the Department of Education, which is the sole funder of the post, to increase the grant allocation. The Department did increase the grant but only to cover increases under the National Agreement. The annual grant is £20,575, of which £17,779 goes towards the worker's salary. Dublin VEC has a much greater annual grant.
2. The whole area of youth and youth needs has changed greatly in the last 14 years. It would be appropriate to find a new analogue for the worker and an appropriate salary. The Rights Commissioner in his Recommendation supported this idea. The Council is willing to discuss the situation with the Union.
DECISION:
The Court finds that there are reasonable grounds to show that there was a recognised link between the rate of pay applicable to the claimant and the scale for Youth Officer (Officer for Out of School Activities) employed by the City of Dublin VEC.
The Court is cognisant of the financial constraints under which the Council is working and, in these circumstances, considers that the parties should enter discussions with a view to agreeing arrangements acceptable to both parties. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
4th July, 1996______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.