FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRALEE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two workers, one a parks caretaker and the other who has responsibility for the town's car parks. Both workers are on pay scales aligned to a grade now abolished, i.e., that of Rural Road Overseer (RRO). That grade, through negotiations under the PCW, was reclassified as General Services Supervisor and the rate moved forward accordingly. The Union is seeking the restoration of parity with the new grade on the basis that a clear linkage existed. The Council rejected the claim on the grounds, it maintains, that no formal linkage existed and also that there would be serious implications for the Council, not least that the rates of the two workers would be in excess of that of the foreman grade. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 23rd of December, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Tralee, on the 29th of February, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Union sought the "analogue review" increase on behalf of the two workers, the Council's response was that that increase was not to be applied to the RROs or anyone linked to them. Subsequently the RROs secured a substantial revision of their pay, in excess of the analogue review. However, the Council indicated that it could not apply the increase to the two claimants on the grounds that it had applied only to the RROs and that they had been regraded.
2. In relation to the parks caretaker, the Council reviewed that post in 1996/97 and upgraded it to the same level as RRO. No substantial difference has occurred in the responsibilities of the parks caretaker or the Overseers in the space of 6 months to warrant a departure from what the Council itself implemented. Regarding the car park attendant, the Council specifically agreed to realign him with the RRO in October, 1997, which is after the date of the RRO review and the discussions on the review were well underway at the time of his realignment.
3. Nothing has taken place since 1997 to justify the two claimants being paid £64.18 less than the rate of the grade to which they have been aligned since 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to the introduction of the new post of General Services Supervisor there existed a National Pay Scale which applied to Roads Overseer/Water and Sewerage Caretaker Grade V. This is the scale which both employees enjoyed. Both employees pay rates have been reviewed in line with the pay increases applying to General Operatives and their pay still coincides with the pay scale currently applying to Water and Sewerage Caretaker Grade V.
2. If the current pay claim were to be conceded both employees would have a pay scale some £18 per week greater that that enjoyed by general foremen (all of whom are responsible for a particular service and the supervision of a number of employees) and only £5 per week less that that of Town Foreman who is responsible for all services and 65 outdoor staff. The concession of this claim, therefore, would have serious repercussions for the Council having regard to existing differentials between grades.
3. The car park attendant's duties in no way equate to the post of General Services Supervisor. Similarly, there are specific duties and particulars of employment for the post of Town Park Caretaker. The post of Rural Roads Overseer has been abolished and replaced by a new Grade of General Services Supervisor with new terms and conditions of employment. These new terms and conditions of employment do not in any way reflect the work carried out by the two claimants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the grading structure within Local Authorities generally, the Court does not consider that the General Services Supervisor grade is appropriate to the posts in which the two workers associated with this claim are employed.
For this reason the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th March, 2000.______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.