FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Application of 97% of Craft Rate (Grade A)
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Health Service Executive (HSE) and SIPTU in relation to the application of 97% of the Craft Basic rate applicable in the Construction Industry to a Genaral Operative employed by the HSE. The worker in question is employed in the South Cork Mobile Unit. The Unit is responsible for providing maintainence to a variety of buildings within the South Cork region.
The Union is claiming that the worker is carrying out the same duties as other workers in the Unit who are in receipt of the higher rate of pay. Management's position is that the worker is remunerated at the appropriate level based on his contract of employment as a General Operative and is not required to carry out work beyond his normal job description.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 4th August, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th April 2007, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker is required to carry out work beyond the duties expected of a General Operative. As the other two members of the Unit are in receipt of the higher rate of pay, it is only fair that it be applied in this case also.
2 Comparable workers employed in other locations are also being paid the higher rate of pay. In addition, a colleague of the worker in question was offered the higher rate to become part of this unit but refused the offer. It is unacceptable, based on the duties carried out, that the three members of this unit are not paid the same rate of pay.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker in question is paid in accordance with his conditions of employment. There is no requirement to carry out duties beyond his normal job description.
2 Previous agreement were reached betwen the HSE and SIPTU that the Craftman's mates salary scales applicable in the HSE and Local Authorities would apply going forward but that differentials for carrying out certain duties would be maintained on a personal to holder basis.
3 Management have continually applied wage increases negotiated at national level taking into account Modernisation and Change Agenda and the Craftworkers Parallel Benchmarking Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is not satisifed that the claimant is required as a condition of his employment to carry out work beyond the duties specified in his job description and relevant agreements,
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th April 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.