FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT ARTS, HERITAGE, GAELTACHT AND THE ISLANDS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 24 Park Rangers for an increase in pay and access to promotional positions.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 the Wildlife Service (now the responsibility of the Department) was transferred into the Office of Public Works. Amongst the workers transferred was a group of 42 Wildlife Rangers. They had the status of established civil servants. This created an anomalous situation because OPW already had, at the time, a group of Wildlife Wardens who worked exclusively in national parks and whose duties were virtually identical to those of Wildlife Rangers.
There was a substantial difference in the rates of pay of the two groups, Wildlife Wardens having considerably more pay. Subsequently the Wildlife Wardens were changed to Park Rangers. In the meantime the Department recruited a number of industrial Park Rangers to work in areas other than parks, assigned them to virtually the same duties as applied to established Wildlife Rangers, and paid them at the higher Park Ranger rate of pay.
The established Wildlife Rangers are paid a four point scale ranging from £184.01 to £245.62 per week. They also receive special unsocial hours payments and allowances. They have access to promotion outlets into established positions in the wider Wildlife service. The non-established Park Rangers are paid a scale ranging form £262.68 to £274.66, they also receive unsocial hours payments and allowances.
These workers are claiming a substantial increase in pay and access to established Civil Service grade promotions in the Wildlife service. The Department rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a number of conciliation conferences were held at various dates between 1995/1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 28th of October, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 4th of November, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pay of the workers concerned is determined by reference to the General Operative grade in Government Departments. This pay linkage is unsatisfactory and not appropriate to the range of duteis they discharge. An Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) report has evaluated their work and concluded that the duties of this group compared favourably to, and even exceeded those of Assistant Fisheries Inspectors in the Central Fisheries Board. The Department has rejected the finding and refused to implement it. The Union seeks its implementation. The work of Park Rangers was not evaluated prior to the IPC study. A pay relationship with the General Operative grade is now no longer appropriate.
2. The IPC report is the only professional assessment of the duties of the grade that exists. The report is conclusive, there is no compelling argument to reject its findings.
3. A grade equivalent to Assistant Fisheries Inspector already exists in the National Parks and Wildlife Service - District Wildlife Officer II. The Union is willing to assimilate to that scale as an alternative to the Assistant Fisheries Inspector scale.
4. In order to comply with Partnership 2000, the Union is willing to start at an appropriate point on the District Wildlife Officer II scale and progress along that scale, with due allowances to be made for premium earnings which the workers concerned currently enjoy.
5. The current promotional structure consists effectively of two posts of Head Park Ranger remunerated by way of an allowance of £20 per week over and above the pay of Park Ranger. The supervisory structure above that level consists of District Wildlife Officers which are graded at level District Wildlife Officer I and District Wildlife Officer II. They are established Civil Service posts to which the workers concerned have no access. The sister grade of Wildlife Ranger, whose work is almost identical to that of Park Ranger, and whose position under legislation is similar, has a far superior promotional structure.
6. The grade of District Wildlife Officer I, and District Wildlife Officer II is the national promotional outlet for the grade of National Park Ranger, yet the workers are denied access to these grades.
7. The workers concerned are entitled to a structure which is in line with that of their sister grade. They have similar qualifications, operate under the same legislation and in many cases perform similar duties. There is no basis for treating them differently.
8. Concession of the Union's claim for District Wildlife Officer II grade would effectively address both claims at once. Workers would have their claim for regrading addressed and, by being assimilated to that grade, they would become established Civil Servants and become entitled to promotion to the structures that currently exist.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is not possible to grant both a pay increase and promotion to established posts because, for pay purposes, the workers concerned have a direct link with General Operatives. They have not sought to break this link and are therefore tied to agreements governing the pay of that grade. It would be necessary, as a first step, to formally sever the link with General Operatives.
2. The Department accepts that the two grades (Wildlife Rangers and Park Rangers) do almost identical work, that one is an established Civil Service grade with a particular rate of pay and the other a non-established Civil Service grade with a higher rate of pay.
3. The two groups must logically be brought together and merged into one. It would be equally logical that the non-established grade should be merged into the established grade.
4. The Department faces obstacles in relation to any radical measures being taken at this time. The Government embargo on Civil Service numbers is in place. There is also the question of the disparity in pay rates. The Department would not be in any position to elevate the pay of the established grade to the level of the non-established grade, even if it had a claim from the established grade's Union for such and increase, which it does not have. There are also the difficulties, likely to arise, if there was one group of 97 Rangers of which one section had substantially more pay than the other.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the information made available, together with the views of the parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds it is inequitable that two grades of workers who are involved in the management and protection of the National Parks and who perform virtually the same job have different pay, conditions, and status.
Recognising that with the advent of proposed legislation for this area greater flexibility and co-operation will be required from all staff in this service, the Court considers the parties should take the opportunity at this time to address and eliminate the present anomalies.
In the interests of equity, efficiency and the maintenance of a climate of co-operation and good industrial relations, the Court considers that the present situation should not be allowed to continue but should be addressed in the following way:-
1. The Department should make such arrangements as are necessary to enable the workers here concerned to be integrated into the Civil Service structure.
2. In accordance with the job evaluation findings that the employees be assimilated at the appropriate point on the District Wildlife Officer II scale.
The Court so recommends.
In making this recommendation the Court is conscious that established Civil Servants represented by another union have no access to this Court.
Given their role in this specific area, it is the view of the Court that these workers and their representatives should be consulted in relation to the changes arising as a consequence of the implementation of this recommendation
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
12th November, 1997______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.