FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : POBALSCOIL ROSMINI - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Senior Caretaker's allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed as a Junior Caretaker with the School since 1998. The Union's case is that he accepted the job on the basis that, following an 18-month probationary period, the Board of Management would apply the Senior Caretaker's allowance to his weekly wage. Following the probationary period the worker approached the Board which in turn made a case on his behalf to the Department of Education. However, following correspondence between the parties the Department rejected the claim in 2002 and again in 2005. The Department's reason for not acceding to the claim is based on a Caretaker's Working Group Report (the Report) from 1980.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 3rd of July, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of September, 2007. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's decision.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.All previous incumbents of this post since 1980 have enjoyed the Senior Caretaker's allowance. On the basis of the terms and conditions outlined to the worker he had an expectation that he would be treated in the same manner.
2.The worker supervises five cleaners and, therefore, fulfills one of the criteria for Senior Caretaker status. He also performs other duties such as liaising with the Principal and maintenance of stocks. As the worker is the only caretaker at the School he also has to undertake the Junior Caretaker's duties.
SCHOOL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The School, in principle, is not against the worker receiving the Senior Caretaker's allowance but it has not received authorisation from the Department of Education.
2. The 1980 Report states that payment of the allowance applies only to schools which employ two or more caretakers in the Dublin region. The worker does not qualify in this instance. Conceding the claim could lead to similar knock-on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the provisions of the collective agreement governing the payment of a senior caretakers allowance. It also notes that there are additional duties prescribed for the holders of this allowance which the Claimant is, in fact, performing.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view that the resolution of the dispute could be advanced by further discussions between the parties. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union's claim should now be referred to the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation and that the parties seek a resolution of the issues involved having regard to the particular facts of this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th September, 2007______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.