FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ENNISCORTHY TOWN COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR17473/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. From the 1st of January, 1983 the supervisory craftsman position in Enniscorthy Town Council, i.e. the Town Foreman was reclassified as Assistant Foreman (Craft) in line with an agreement from 1978 in which craftsmen supervising other craftsmen were categorised into Chargehands, Assistant Foremen and Foremen.
The worker concerned was assigned the Town Foreman's duties in December, 1998 and has retained the position to date. The worker is in receipt of the rate of pay for Assistant Craft Foreman.The Union claim that he should be in receipt of the foreman rate of pay as that is his title.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 25th of May, 2004 and is as follows:-
"I accept the arguments put forward by the respondent and do not recommend in favour of the union claim."
The Union on behalf of the worker appealed the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court on the 28th of May, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of August, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is clearly a Foreman and a Craftsperson, the job must carry the nationally established rate of Foreman.
2. The Union contend that an Assistant Foreman should only exist where there is a foreman to assist. In this case the Foreman reports to the Town Clerk.
3. The worker has duties beyond that of Craft Foreman in that he manages and supervises others besides crafts people.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Council maintain that this is a cost-increasing claim and is specifically precluded under the National Pay AgreementSustaining Progress -Part 2 Clause 1.5 and 21.2.
2.TheTown Foreman's responsibilities both in terms of the level of activity and the number of staff requiring supervision have decreased with effect from the 1st of January, 2004 following the transfer of Water and Sewerage Services to Wexford County Council.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the claim at issue is a minor claim and that the Union is not precluded from pursuing it under the terms of the public sector pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress.
It is noted that the claimant in this case is classified as a Town Foreman and is aligned to the grade of Assistant Foreman for pay purposes. The grade of Town Foreman is not a nationally agreed rate and is not encompassed by the National Agreement between LGMSB and Unions representing craft workers.
The Court has not been directed to any material difference in the duties of the claimant compared to those undertaken by a craft foreman covered by the National Agreement. In these circumstances the Court can see no justification for maintaining a rate of pay different to that paid to a craft foreman. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
This recommendation is based on the facts of the present case and is not intended to have any wider implications.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th August, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.