FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alignment of pay with Director of Services.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court arises from a claim by the Union to have the pay relationship of the Deputy City Engineer grade in Dublin City Council changed to Director of Services level. The Union maintains that this claim is in respect of the very small number of staff (7) of Dublin City County at Deputy City Engineer/Head of Services with delegated managerial functions. Staff at these posts have very senior management responsibilities, duties and delegations.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th April, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Deputy City Engineers/Head of Services in Dublin City Council wish to have their historical pay linkage with County Engineering grade (nationally abolished underBetter Local Government (BLG)) set aside and to have their pay relationship aligned to the new national grade of Director of Services, thus maintaining the equilibrium in the management structure agreed under BLG.
2. In Dublin City Council the alignment afforded to members of IMPACT include those at general management grades and those requiring specific professional qualifications e.g. Head of Management Accounting, Head of Financial Accounting and Head of Information Technology. The Union contends that it should follow that the claimants can have their pay and conditions linked to the national grade of Director of Service.
3. Each of the Deputy City Engineers/Head of Services included in this claim have annual budgets in excess of €30 million. Some have responsibility for a significant number of staff (between 250 - 700). This level of budgetary responsibility and staff responsibility is significantly higher than the average budget and staff responsibilities of Directors of Services in any local authority, therefore, it is appropriate that, the claimants be remunerated at the Director of Services level.
4. The fact that the Deputy City Engineer/Head of Service has a specific professional qualification should not be an impediment to their alignment to the Director of Services grade. The national grade of Head of Functions have specific professional qualifications, which are a condition of their employment at that level, and their pay and conditions are at Director of Services level.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 To infer that the Executive Manager post and the Deputy City Engineer post should have the same pay level on the basis of positioning at level 3 in the organisation does not stand up to scrutiny.
2. The Deputy City Engineer post is a professional technical post and its pay relationship is with the engineering grades in the local authority service and is determined within the benchmarking process. The Director of Service's pay is determined by the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector.
3. Also, the pay for the Assistance City manager and the City Engineer, City Architect, City Planner and Law Agent posts are at the second tier in the structure, but have different pay rates and different pay determination methods.
4. Any concession of this claim would cause follow on claims on behalf of a number of grades in Dublin City Council who have the same salary level as the Dublin City Engineer, ie. Assistant Law Agent, Chief Fire Officer, Chief Quantity Surveyor, Chief Valuer, and others. It would also have knock on implications for the four highest level professional posts in Dublin City Council, viz., City Engineer, City Architect, City Planner, and Law Agent.
5. The Deputy City Engineer has already received a pay increase under Benchmarking leaving no scope for further regrading.
6. This is a cost increasing claim and is therefore precluded under clause 19.6 of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not satisfied that the events which occurred outside the provenance of SIPTU between November, 2001 and April, 2002 took place in as inclusive a manner as they should have.
The Court accordingly is of the view that, in the unique case of the claimants alone, a stated case exists to be rectified.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties re-engage on this matter with a view to full rectification of the position of the claimants accruing in the course of the next Benchmarking exercise, at the end of which no loss should have accrued to the claimants.
The Court emphasises the unique and sole nature of this recommendation. It conveys no precedent on any other or similar group but deals solely with the particular situation of this unique small group.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th_August, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.