FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the College's proposals under Clause 2(iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 16 workers who are employed as general operatives in the Buildings Office in Trinity College. Management and the Union have been involved in discussions involving general operatives and related grades, under the terms of Clause 2(iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) and a number of agreements have been concluded. The proposals of the College which are offered to workers in return for acceptance of a list of Management objectives (details supplied to the Court) are as follows:-
- (I) A wage increase of £22.65 per week paid on the following basis:
(i) £5 [less the 1% paid under PCW Clause 2(iv)] payable from the 1st of January, 1997.
(ii) £17.65 payable from the 1st of July, 1997; except for those members of staff who are eligible for a non-contributory pension who will receive £17.40.
(II) Travel time (which is only paid to Buildings Office General Operatives) will be paid for annual leave and for a maximum of 9 public holidays; 5 from the 1st of April, 1999, and the remaining 4 from the 1st of April, 2000.
(III) A special pay increase of 2% will be payable in accordance with Clause 4 of the Annex on Public Service Pay to Partnership 2000 from the 1st of July, 1999, provided that joint monitoring shows that agreed management objectives under PCW are being carried out.
(IV) The terms of this offer also included the following agreement concerning a change of the external wage relationship which these staff have had with Dublin Corporation since 1979, in that both sides will recognise a pay relationship between the General Operatives and related grades in Trinity College and General Operatives in the Health Boards and Local Authorities.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The College's proposals relating to MTMG were rejected because workers are being asked to concede a major productivity measure which does not compare with any of the measures proposed to other groups under the General Operative and related grades proposals.
2. The workers concerned traditionally had a relationship with craft workers prior to the link with Dublin Corporation. They aspire to re-establishing this position. In general where General Operatives in other employments have co-operated with MTMG they have a specific link with craft workers and this has been reflected in such agreements. In Dublin Corporation a new promotional General Operative post of Utility Worker was created. The College cannot expect the workers concerned to co-operate with MTMG in return for a general increase applied to apprentices.
3. The Union has repeatedly indicated that it is prepared to discuss MTMG but it has to be dealt with separately to Clause 2(iii) of PCW.
4. The workers are prepared to accept point 5 of Management's objectives on the basis of continued co-operation with existing specialised equipment and tools under Clause 2(iii) of PCW. This would be in line with the co-operation being requested from other groups in the College.
5. If the College withdraws the disputed proposals under MTMG, the Union is confident that the issue can be resolved without undue delay.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College is offering a significant increase to the basic rate of pay for General Operatives, which is fair and reasonable in relation to the quid pro quos sought by the College in return. The College will not be permitted by its funding authorities to increase this offer. A similar remuneration package has been approved in other public sector organisations, including other Irish universities.
2. The Buildings Office General Operatives stand to benefit to a greater extent than other weekly-paid groups from this offer, for the following reasons:-
(i) They are the only category of SIPTU weekly-paid staff to receive travel time
payments.
(ii) By agreeing to the devolution of non-core craft duties, they will make it more
attractive for the College to use General Operatives for overtime work. The
overtime earnings of General Operatives will consequently increase
significantly.
(iii) If General Operatives carry out non-core work, the College will recruit a
significant number of additional General Operatives.
(iv) In the present climate in the public sector, College General Operatives must
compete with external contractors for maintenance projects in College. If the
General Operatives agree to carry out non-core craft duties, they will be in a
stronger position to compete for this work, and will consequently reinforce the
position of the College Buildings Office as a source of permanent, pensionable
employment. Conversely, by refusing to carry out non-core craft duties, the
General Operatives will threaten the prospects of permanent, pensionable
employment in the Buildings Office in the medium to long term.
3. The carrying out of non-core craft duties by General Operatives is now the norm in the buildings industry, and in comparable employments such as other Irish universities.
4. The College is not asking General Operatives to work additional hours or to take on an increased workload, and the non-core craft tasks referred to are not particularly onerous.
5. The General Operatives have been informed that the College will provide them with any training necessary to enable them to carry out non-core craft work. In this connection it should be mentioned that the College Buildings Office has a scheme whereby General Operatives are facilitated in obtaining the necessary training and experience to become qualified tradesmen. This enables them to advance themselves to better paid positions such as Craftsmen, and Area Executive Craftsmen. Involvement in non-core craft work would, therefore, provide useful experience for General Operatives wishing to advance themselves.
6. If the devolution of non-core duties is removed from the College's list of Management objectives, the remaining list would not merit the payment of the remuneration package offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the increase proposed in respect of the claimant grade under Clause 2(iii) of PCW is based on the increase applicable to General Operatives employed by Health Boards and Local Authorities outside Dublin. It is the Court's view that the range of flexibilities to be conceded in return for this increase should also be in line with those conceded to the Health Boards and Local Authorities. This approach was not pursued by the parties in their earlier negotiations. There also appears to be some confusion as to whether non-core craft work by General Operatives is provided for in the Health Board/Local Authority agreement.
The Court recommends that the parties make a further effort to resolve the present dispute by negotiation. In these negotiations the range of concessions made in the case of the Health Boards and Local Authorities should br ascertained and taken fully into account. Any additional concessions which may be required to meet the specific needs of the College should be negotiated in the context of a special allowance.
These negotiations should recommence immediately and conclude within six weeks of the date of this recommendation. Any matters on which agreement cannot be reached may be referred back to the Court for final recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st July, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.