FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. R-039914-IR-06/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned has been employed by Monaghan County Council since 1974 and has been undertaking driving duties (Driver B Grade) continuously since then. In 2000 he agreed to undertake driving/operating one of the Mobile Velocity Tar patcher machines.
The County Council agreed on taking up these duties that his rate of pay would be calculated by the following method of calculation:-
"In addition to Driver B Grade pay scale the difference between the maximum point of Labourer pay scale and the maximum point of Grade 4 Waterworks Caretaker would apply".
Following the Parallel Benchmarking process in 2004 the Waterworks Caretakers Grade IV was subsumed into the Waterworks Caretakers Grade V pay scale. The Worker expected that this adjustment would be reflected in the method of calculating his pay.
However the County Council changed the calculation method to the following:-
" - In addition to Driver B Grade pay scale the difference between the maximum point of the Driver B scale and the maximum point of the Labourers pay scale multiplied by two (2)."
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. In his recommendation which issued on the 24th July, 2006 he recommended that the Worker retain his pay linkage with the Waterworks Caretakers.
The County Council appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10th August, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd November, 2006.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Following the elimination of the Waterworks Caretakers Grade IV, which was the grade used to calculate the allowance, the County Council, in line with other local authorities used a different method to calculate the allowance. There was no loss incurred by the Worker in the new methodology used.
2.Since the introduction of the allowance in April 2000, there has been no significant change to the duties carried out by the Worker. Any change or increased flexibility is normal on-going change as provided for under Sustaining Progress.
3. The County Council applied a methodology in order to pay an allowance in recognition of the duties associated with the driving and operation of a Tar Patching machine. The allowance, coupled with the basic rate of Driver B scales fairly and adequately remunerates employees carrying out the duties of the Tar Patching machine operator.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Union on behalf of the Worker contend that the new method of calculation imposed on him has had a financial loss implication for him.
2. The Worker submits that the responsibilities undertaken daily in carrying out his duties continue to increase with increasing volumes of traffic on the roads network daily.
3. The Union maintain that the established method of calculation to determine the Worker's pay rate was a reasonable method and are seeking a reversal to this method and that outstanding retrospective payments due be applied to him.
DECISION:
The claim before the Court concerns the Council’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s recommendation, which recommended that the Council should retain a pay linkage with the Water and Sewage Caretakers for the claimant.
The Council deny that a pay linkage exists between the claimant, who is employed as a driver of a Tar Patching Machine and the Water and Sewage Caretakers. It explained that the claimant has been in receipt of an additional allowance for driving the machine, since April 2000. This allowance was calculated at the difference between the maximum of the General Operative rate and the maximum of the Water and Sewage Caretakers, Grade IV scale, however it held that there was no linkage between the roles of both.
As a result of the Parallel Benchmarking exercise, Water and Sewage Caretakers Grade IV was eliminated and the grade was upgraded to Grade V. As a result the County Council devised an alternative method of calculating the allowance. Prior to the Parallel Benchmarking exercise, the allowance was €60.69 per week. The Council’s new formula increased the allowance to €65.66 per week. The Council stated that the revision of the Water and Sewage Caretakers pay rates under the Parallel Benchmarking exercise was specific to the grade and involved significant changes to the role.
As the Union was not satisfied with this method, it submitted a claim for restoration of relativity with Water and Sewage Caretakers Grade V, thereby claiming an allowance of €95.81 per week.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that the value of the allowance applicable to drivers of the Tar Patching Machine was devised using a particular methodology and that that methodology did not bestow relativity with a different grade for those drivers. Consequently, the Court does not uphold the claimant’s claim for relativity with the Water and Sewage Caretakers Grade V.
The Court is of the view that the increase in the allowance proposed by the Council is fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the claimant.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is overturned and the Council’s appeal succeeds.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th December, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.