FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Eating-on-site allowance, (2) Pay of leak-detection crew , (3) Pay of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's 3 claims are as follows: (1) Eating-on-site allowance for 40 workers. The Union is seeking to increase the allowance from £1.13 to £1.50 per day, as per a 1983 agreement. (2) Pay of leak detection crew. Although it is a two-person operation, the claim only involves one worker. The Union is seeking that the worker be paid at the Water Inspector Grade (£315.73 - £339.50), with the appropriate retrospection. (3) Pay of one worker. The claim is that the worker, who has moved to the Water Department, be paid at the grade of Driver/Plant Operator - B, ( £252.90 - £272.02.)
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences took place on the 15th of September and the 19th of November, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of January, 2000, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Eating-on-site allowance
In 1982/83, Council management and the then ITGWU agreed as part of an overall package that the outdoor staff would have parity with Dublin Corporation in relation to eating-on-site, and travel allowance. As the eating-on-site allowance in Dublin has increased from £1.13 to £1.50, then the same increase should apply in Bray.
2. Pay of leak-detection crew.
The worker has had to acquire new skills, operate new technology and be fully interchangeable with his partner. Both men are unsupervised. Because of the additional responsibilities he has taken on, the worker should be paid the maximum of the chargehand rate of £339.50.
3. Pay of a worker
- The worker's new duties include water-main fitting and connections, turning valves, sounding and any semi-skilled work that might be requested of him. He should be paid appropriately, which would be at the maximum of the Driver/Plant Manager rate i.e. £272.02.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Eating-on-site allowance
The allowance paid to Dublin Corporation staff was part of a 48 point restructuring package from 1997 and relates only to them. The workers concerned already receive a £12.65 weekly allowance, dated from 1997. Conceding the allowance would be cost-increasing and contrary to the terms of Partnership 2000.
2. Pay of leak-detection crew
The Union claims that other authorities pay people employed in leakage-detection teams the Water Inspector's rate of pay, but have produced no proof of this. Bray staff receive a flat rate of pay at the appropriate grade, plus travel allowance, a meal allowance and one full night's overtime. They are also offered Saturday overtime. Taking the above into account, the earnings of the worker concerned will be in excess of what a Water Inspector will earn.
3. Pay of a worker
The employee that the worker concerned replaced had worked in the Water Department for 25 years. His rate of pay was increased after 18 year's service, following a Rights Commissioner's investigation which stated "...it should be understood that future post holders will not enjoy this rate". The worker concerned has only 12 months' service to date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends as follows in respect of each of the Union's claims:
- Eating-on site allowance
The Court accepts that Bray UDC introduced this allowance in line with that paid by the Dublin Local Authorities at a time when its payment was confined to these employments. However, the allowance was subsequently extended to all Local Authorities at the Dublin rate. While the rate has subsequently been adjusted in the Dublin Authorities, no such adjustment has been conceded in any other Authority. Having regard to the basis on which the claim is presented, the Court does not consider it appropriate to recommend its concession.
Pay of leak-detection crew
It is noted that this claim is based on the Union's belief that the rate claimed is paid to staff employed on similar duties in comparable employments. This has not been established to the satisfaction of the Court, on the information provided. Accordingly, on the information available, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Upgrade of one employee
The Court notes that Rights Commissioner's recommendation ST. 159/94 clearly envisaged that the replacement for the then holder of the post in question would not receive the enhanced rate established by that recommendation. For that reason, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. This does not, however, preclude the parties from reviewing the rate applicable to the present holder of the post by reference to factors other than the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th April, 2000______________________
con/conDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.