FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUNDALK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Foreman's salary scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim for re-grading on behalf of one of its members. The claimant has been employed by the Institute since January, 1974, when he was appointed as a caretaker. In September, 1977, he was appointed foreman caretaker.
The Union states that the work and responsibilities of the claimant have increased substantially since his promotion to foreman. The Union claims that he has not been adequately remunerated for his accommodation of this change. The worker should be put on the first point of the Technician's salary scale.
Management rejected the Union's claim. It stated that it was prepared to accept LCR16051 which dealt with a similar type claim at Limerick Institute of Technology.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 19th of July, 1999, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of October, 2000 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of September, 2001 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no comparison between this claim and that referred to in LCR16501.
2. Since his promotion, there has been dramatic changes in his duties and to the scale of activity he is obliged to take responsibility for.
3. The title of foreman does not adequately recognise his range of duties and its is unfair to retain him on a rate of pay associated with the title.
4. The claimant should be placed on the 1st point of the Technicians' salary scale.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Subject to the approval of the Department of Education and Science, the Institute will accept LCR16051 which recommended a differential of 12½% between the Foreman Caretaker and the Caretaker grade.
2. The Minister for Education and Science sets down the rates of pay and terms and conditions to apply to caretakers. The same basic rates of pay for the position of Foreman Caretaker are applicable to all Institutes of Technology. Any movement in this rate must be agreed nationally by all parties concerned.
3. The requirements of the position do not require craft technician qualifications.
4. Any increase in the current basic rate of pay would have serious knock-on effects within the Institute itself and also in other Institutes of Technology.
5. The post is subject to review under the Benchmarking process. We should await any recommendations concerning regrading from that process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the written and oral submissions presented at the hearing of this dispute.
The Court does not find any basis to distinguish the Foreman Caretaker role in this Institute from those in similar Institutes. The Court recommends that the offer from the Institute to adopt the Labour Court recommendation made in a similar case in Limerick should be accepted, with similar retrospection back to the date of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st October, 2001______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.