FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay Scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. At a meeting in March, 2000, the Union and the Council held negotiations on restructuring the general operatives area in the Sanitary Services Department. The workers, numbering 51(38 permanent and 15 temporary), operate as assistants to Waterworks Caretakers and are in three grades - chargehands, semi-skilled and general operatives. The Union is prepared to accept the restructuring with a revised role for these workers who would go on a single pay scale. However, it was not possible to agree what scale should apply or the operative date. At a subsequent meeting the Council made the following offer:-
The recruit grade in Sanitary Services would be paid a rate equivalent to Waterworks Caretaker, Grade II. On successful completion of the NVQ (National Vocational Qualification in Water/ Waste Water) they would proceed to the Grade IV Waterworks Caretaker Grade wage scale. Existing permanent staff would proceed on a point for point basis from the General Operative scale to the Waterworks Caretaker Grade IV scale.
The Union rejected the offer. It is claiming the regrading of the claimants to Assistant Water Inspectors with a pay scale of Grade V Waterworks Caretakers for permanent employees and Grade IV Waterworks Caretakers pay scale for temporary workers effective from January, 2000. The Union is also seeking point for point assimilation to the new scale. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held in September and October 2000, but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 1st December, 2000. A Court hearing was held in Bundoran on the 7th March, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned undertake a wide variety of duties and have a significant range of responsibilities (details to the Court). The job description set out in their proposed role of Assistant to Water Inspector clearly demonstrates that the duties and responsibilities clearly merit Grade V Waterworks Caretakers scale.
2. In April, 1999 a regrading claim for Services Caretakers in Sanitary Services was concluded. It resulted in a change of title to Water Inspectors and a regrading to Assistant Craft Foreman pay scale. When the role description of Assistant Water Inspector and Water Inspector are compared they are very similar as the claimants assist Water Inspectors in all their duties. They should be recognised and rewarded in the same manner by regrading to Grade V Waterworks Caretakers pay scale.
3. When the Waterworks Caretakers were regraded to Water Inspectors, the NVQ Water/Waste Water qualification was a requirement of the post and is rewarded in their pay structure i.e.
(a) New Caretakers are employed at Grade IV Waterworks Caretakers scale and on successful completion of the NVQ, promoted to the Water Inspectors scale.
(b) Existing Caretakers are requested to achieve the NVQ qualification within two years from 1st January, 1999.
Some of the claimants already possess the NVQ qualification and others are in the process of training, yet in the Council's proposals they will remain at Grade IV Waterworks Caretakers scale. There is no incentive to acquire the NVQ qualification. The claimants are willing to voluntarily acquire the NVQ qualification and the Union is seeking that the Council recognise the qualification in the same manner as Water Inspectors, by regrading to Grade V Waterworks Caretakers pay scale.
4. Since the negotiations commenced the Union has made significant efforts to resolve the issue. Its original claim was for parity with the Waterworks Inspectors for all the claimants. A compromise was proposed seeking the Grade V Waterworks Caretakers scale for permanent workers and the Grade IV for temporaries. The Council has not deviated from its original offer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council's expenditure on payroll in 2000 represented 47% of the overall budget. The cost of the current offer is £130,000. The Council conceded 14 additional posts in 2000 and has agreed to further review manning levels in 2001. The criteria set nationally for applying the Waterworks Caretaker Grade V pay scale requires the Caretaker to be in charge of major water supply schemes with comprehensive treatment works and an operating capacity of more than 2 million gallons per day. The requirement for Wastewater Caretakers is to have charge of secondary or, where appropriate, tertiary treatment plants with population / operating capacity in excess of 10,000.
2. The Council has prepared, in consultation with staff representatives, a role description for Assistant to Waterworks Inspector. The work described in this role, which has been accepted by the grade, is not comparable with that undertaken by the Waterworks Caretaker at Grade IV or Grade V level. The claimants provide a supporting role to the Inspectors who carry duties at a higher level of responsibility.
3. There is little flexibility within the budget which is provided through the Council's revenue account because the means of raising additional revenue to provide the service is limited, particularly since the abolition of domestic water charges, and there is no injection of capital funding for the day to day maintenance of networks and treatment plants.
4. The Council's offer provides workers with a 15% pay increase at a time when the national increases under the PPF provide little more than this over a three year period. The work undertaken by the claimants will not be comparable to that of Waterworks Inspectors in terms of responsibility for networks/treatment plants.
The Council is satisfied that the pay increase offered is very generous when the nature of the work is assessed relative to other staff in the service.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the range of duties attaching to the posts at issue and to the nationally set criteria for grading these posts, the Court considers that the grading structure proposed by the Council is appropriate.
The Court does, however, consider that the effective date should be moved to 1st March, 2000. Subject to this modification the Court recommends that the Council's offer be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd March, 2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.