FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WESLEY COLLEGE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning a review of the pay of the catering manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a catering manager at the College, which is a privately funded secondary school. The Union is claiming that the pay scale of the claimant (£16,560) should be adjusted to bring it in line with the Catering Officer Grade III in the Health Board scale £21,249 max. (including two long service increments). At local level discussions the College offered to increase the claimant's salary by £500 per annum. The Union rejected the offer. In the meantime the College implemented the £500 per annum increase. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 28th of September, 1997. Agreement could not be reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 20th of January, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd of April, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1987 the Union secured an agreement with the College whereby "the College will have regard to movements in pay for Catering Officers in other areas when adjusting this scale from time to time". This constitutes an obligation on the College to reflect changes in the Catering Officer rate of pay when reviewing the claimant's pay.
2. The College is in breach of the 1987 agreement because movements in the Catering Officers' pay have not been taken into account by the College when reviewing the claimant's pay. (Details to the Court). In 1986 the claimant's pay was the equivalent of 98.32% of the Catering Officer Grade III Scale. Currently her pay scale is only 77.93% of the Catering Officer scale. A restoration of the 1986 differential would result in a salary of £20,892.
3. The College has made reference to other Catering Managers in schools in the Dublin area. They are not valid comparisons when responsibility and scale is taken into consideration. The only reasonable comparable example is the Manager in the cafeteria in DIT, Cathal Brugha Street (salary £19,731 per annum) who has a similar level of responsibility for staff level and meals but who has no responsibility for staff management, budgets or cleaning.
4. The claimant does a very responsible job to an excellent standard on behalf of the College, (details to the Court) and this is acknowledged by Management. In this context she is entitled to be paid the going rate for the job. In 1987, it was agreed that a fair comparison for establishing this would be reference to the Catering Officer Grade III. Nothing in the duties or responsibilities of either has changed since then to justify an alteration to this comparison. The Union claims that the differential which existed between the Catering Officer Grade III and the Catering Manager in Wesley College be restored in full.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In correspondence to the College in January, 1987, the Union stated that the offer proposed was "...acceptable to the Union, on the basis that, for the future, the College will have regard to movements in pay for Catering Officers in other areas, when adjusting this scale from time to time." The College, in response, made no reference to this statement and it is Management's view that any unchallenged proposal to have regard for movements in pay for Catering Officers, does not, in any way, imply a commitment to pay parity with that grade in the Department of Health. Pay increases subsequent to the 1987 agreement were in line with the Wage Agreement in operation at the time and did not move in line with special awards paid to Catering Officers. This is a clear indication of the College's position on the matter, in that parity with the Catering Officer's scale was not accepted. In addition, the amendments to the Catering Officer's scale were not taken up by the Union as the basis for similar increases for the claimant This would appear to indicate that, in not making a claim for the special increases in 1989 and 1992, the Union accepted that the claimant was not entitled to equal treatment with Department of Health staff.
2. When the claim for parity was addressed in 1986-1987, it was defended on the basis that the work of the Catering Manager in Wesley College was not equivalent to that of a Catering Officer in a hospital or health board home funded by the Department of Health. The present situation in Wesley where boarding numbers have fallen from 240 in 1987 to 175 at present, further underlines the difference in the posts, in that the numbers being catered for, and the type of service required is vastly different from the demands placed on Catering Officers in hospitals.
3. It is important also to note the fact that health board and hospital staff have a requirement to work year-round, apart from approximately four weeks' annual leave. In the claimant's case, there is no requirement to work during summer, Easter or Christmas holidays, or during two half term breaks, with the result that the working year is comprised of 36 weeks in total. When the claimant's salary is analysed on the basis of weeks actually at work, it emerges that her comparable rate of pay could be between £21,000 and £22,000, which is higher than the top of the Catering Officer Grade III scale.
4. In making a further comparison, Management looked at the rates for Catering Managers in two other Dublin boarding schools. In these schools Catering Managers work for 48 weeks of the year and, while they would be on a slightly higher annual rate, when the claimant's 16 weeks' annual leave is taken into account, her rate for weeks worked is considerably higher.
5. Wesley College is a private, fee-paying institution and as such, the income from fees is the only source of revenue for the school from which to pay catering, domestic, maintenance and administrative staff. The fall in boarder numbers with the resulting drop in income for the College, has the effect of reducing the budget from which to make any adjustment to staff salaries. The annual review of the claimant's salary, in line with or slightly above the National Wage Agreement in place at any particular time, is appropriate in the circumstances of a working environment which is contracting rather than expanding. Due consideration must be given to the realistic possibility of knock-on claims from other management staff at the claimant's level and from the 20 or so domestics who are represented by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The wording of the condition attached by the Union to its acceptance of new pay arrangements for the claimant in 1987 (to which the College did not demur) and the subsequent practice over a prolonged period, do not provide any clear understanding as to what was agreed between the parties with regard to future pay movement. It is apparent, however, that movement in pay of Catering Officers in other areas was a factor to be taken into account.
The College have accepted that the predominant factor which it took into account over the period in question was the level of increase provided by National Agreements. While the Court does not accept that it would be appropriate to base the pay of the claimant exclusively on the rate applicable to Catering Officers in the Health Service, the exclusion of all outside comparison is not consistent with the spirit of the 1987 agreement.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties identify a range of public and private sector posts carrying duties analogous to those of the claimant. An appropriate rate of pay should then be negotiated on that basis, including if possible a reference point for future pay movement.
Should the parties fail to agree, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th April, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.