FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WESTMEATH VEC (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Upgrade to senior caretaker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed by the VEC as a caretaker in Athlone Community College since 1995.The Union claims that the worker should be paid at the same rate as the previous holder of the post which it claims was that of a senior caretaker. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in December, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Mullingar on the 15th June, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The previous senior caretaker retired in 1995 and was paid at a higher rate of pay. When the claimant took up the post, and the same duties, he believed that he should also have received the same rates of pay as the previous postholder. However he was paid at the ordinary caretaker rate.
2. The claimant is required as senior caretaker to ensure that all day to day duties are carried out by maintenance, caretaking, and cleaning staff.
3. The claimant is the conduit between the teaching management of the school, and the ancillary staff and has significant duties and responsibilities. He is entitled to be paid at the higher rate of pay as was the previous holder of the post.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All of the duties cited form part of the daily duties of a caretaker and the claimant is not required to undertake any tasks that do not form part of his contract.
2. The previous holder of the post was not on a higher rate of pay. There is no such post as senior caretaker within the grading structure of the VEC.
3. The claimant has received pay increases under all applicable National Agreements, including Benchmarking, and is subject to the changes to work practices and enhanced flexibility that were agreed to secure these payments.
4. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of the Sustaining Progress Agreement. Concession of the claim would lead to consequential claims throughout the entire education sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of the Court that, having considered the evidence put forward in this case, merit has not been established. Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd June, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.