FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay for Foreman/Caretaker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Institute is a third-level higher education institution which provides a broad range of education courses to approximately 4,000 full-time and part-time students. It employs a total of 450 workers.
In early 1994, the Institute (then the Limerick Regional Technical College) created the position of Foreman/Caretaker within its Buildings and Maintenance Department. The position was filled by the current incumbent, following a public competition, commencing on the 19th of September, 1994. He is on the 13-point caretaker scale (£224 to £236) with a £10 differential for additional responsibilities as foreman. His present annual pay amounts to approximately £11,913. The Union claims that his duties and responsibilities merit an upgrade and that his wages should be aligned to the grade of craft assistant (£21,000 p.a. approximately). The claim was rejected by the Institute arguing that his rate was clearly agreed on his employment and is in line with corresponding rates set down by the Department of Education and Science/Department of Finance. The matter was a subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, following which agreement was not reached, although the Institute did indicate its preparedness to consider positively the amount of the differential. This was not acceptable to the Union and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 25th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Limerick, on the 25th of November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Since the worker's appointment, he has taken on substantial additional duties in relation to the buildings and facilities of the Institute as well as deputising for the Institute's Buildings Officer.
2. The remuneration applied to the post of Foreman/Caretaker is the standard Caretaker's scale plus a £10 per week differential. This scale is inappropriate for the position and was neither negotiated nor agreed with the Unions representing the staff in the area, either in the Limerick Institute or nationally.
3. Even considering the terms of his appointment, the differential of £10 is inadequate for the level of responsibility required. While the agreed appointment referred to his undertaking normal caretaking duties he is actually employed full-time on a range of supervisory and administrative duties (details supplied to the Court).
4. Although the worker's pay-scale is based on that of Caretaker, he has substantially inferior conditions of employment, in that he receives no unsociable hours payment and does not receive leave on the 6 Church holidays to which caretaker staff are entitled.
5. The Institute has 3 campuses for which the worker has responsibility. In the period since his appointment, Moylish campus has expanded through the addition of new administration offices, 12 lecture theatres, 4 laboratories, 5 seminar rooms, 22 staff offices, restaurant, all-weather pitch, all carrying additional responsibilities. The worker was not informed at interview that the college was in the process of expanding.
6. The duties of the Foreman/Caretaker are more appropriately represented by the clerical and administrative staff scale and his salary should be adjusted to the equivalent of the Grade V Clerical position. Notwithstanding this, the Union is seeking the opportunity to negotiate the terms and conditions to be applied to a new post in an area where negotiating right have been established.
7. The prohibition of cost-increasing claims under Partnership 2000 should not be used by the employer to create new positions with arbitrary and inappropriate pay scales and then to resist union attempts to establish the post on an agreed basis, within the staffing structure of the Institute.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Upon commencing this position with the Institute, the worker accepted that the remuneration would be at the appropriate point of the Caretaker's scale, starting at the first point, with annual increments which progress through a 13-point scale. He signed a contract of employment to this effect and accepted this scale as applicable to his position as Foreman/Caretaker. It was also agreed that a weekly differential of £10.00 would be given in recognition of the additional responsibilities entailed with the Foreman/Caretaker's position.
2. The rates of pay and terms of employment applicable to Caretakers are set down by the Minister for Education and Science. From a survey undertaken by the Institute with a number of other comparable Institutes of Technology, it emerges that the same basic rates of pay currently being paid to the claimant apply to the position of Foreman/Caretakers elsewhere.
3. The claimant is not a qualified craftsman and the requirements of the position do not require craft qualifications. While the Institute was prepared to consider adjusting the differential of the claimant, any such adjustment could only be in line with the differential being paid in comparable Institutes in the sector.
4. Any increase in the claimant's basic rate would have serious knock-on effects within the Institute itself and in other Institutes throughout the educational sector nationally.
5. This claim is clearly a "cost-increasing" claim which is precluded under the stabilisation clause of the P2000 Agreement. It is the view of the Institute that it must abide by the terms of the P2000 which precludes cost-increasing claims such as this claim. The Institute is also obliged by statute to provide and ensure an efficient and effective service for money and, consequently, cannot accommodate any cost-increasing claims outside the terms of P2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the claimant's claim that he should be placed on a higher grade within the Institute's pay scales and that his current salary does not reflect his range of duties and the additional duties he has undertaken since his appointment. The Court considers that his pay scale is the appropriate scale for his grade as laid down by the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Finance. However, the differential paid for his duties as Foreman is out of line and the Court recommends that it should be increased to 12.5%, with effect from 5th February, 1997 (the date of claim).
The Court also recommends that the Institute should examine the claimant's position on the salary scale with a view to acknowledging his previous experience prior to joining the Institute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th December, 1998.______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.