FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN ZOO (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions have submitted a claim for a pay increase on behalf of keepers at Dublin Zoo. The claim is for an annualised increase of £3,000.
The Unions state that as a result of the 1995 "Dickson Room Agreement" the workload for keepers has increased substantially and that a pay increase was justified.
The Society claims that it is a non-profit making organisation. Prior to 1995, the Zoo was on the verge of closure due to lack of financial investment, lack of visitors and sponsorship.
The Society states that it is not in a financial position to implement an across the board pay increase for keepers. However, it has put forward a proposal to introduce "Success Share Scheme" which is based on attendance levels and also to introduce a new grading structure for keepers.
The Unions rejected these proposals.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th July, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st August, 2000 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th October, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are seeking an increase in basic pay to reflect the flexibility and co-operation staff have already given to management.
2. Since the reorganisation, the Zoo has doubled in size and has a larger collection of animals for keepers to look after which would justify an increase in pay.
3. Management has cut back on the recruitment of general operatives in order to cut expenditure, while at the same time expanding staff in managerial grades.
4. There are a number of injustices in the present wage structure which the Unions want rectified.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay of the pre-1995 keepers is excessive. Any pay increase for this group would have to be marginal.
2. An across the board pay increase cannot be substantiated. Any pay increase would have to be justified on the basis of further productivity.
3. If this claim was conceded, it would hinder the further development of the Zoo.
4. Under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) cost increasing claims are precluded.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all aspects of this claim, the Court does not consider that the claim for increases in zookeeper's pay of £3000 per annum is well founded.
However, the Court is of the view that there is a basis for resolution of this dispute through a combination of the management proposals on a new grading structure and the proposal for the introduction of a "Success Share Scheme". The Court recommends that the parties should seek to resolve the dispute on those terms.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th October, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.