FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DROGHEDA BOROUGH COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was appointed to the post of Plumber with Drogheda Corporation (now Drogheda Borough Council) on a permanent basis in June 1981. In 1998 the then Corporation sought applications for the post of Water Inspector. The Claimant was recommended for the post and took up the appointment on 5th April 1999. He was placed on the maximum point of the pay scale. The Claimant, on taking up the position, understood that issues relating to travel payment, telephone allowances and his pay grade would be addressed in a relatively short space of time.
The issue before the Court concerns the Claimant's rate of pay which has remained unchanged at the maximum of the pay scale.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th June 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th August, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Claimant was promised, but never received, a pay review to reflect his duties as a Water Inspector which the Union contends are way over and above those of the responsibilities of a craftsperson.
2. The Claimant has been at the top of his pay scale for nearly ten years. The Union contends that there is a huge difference between the pay of the Claimant and the pay scale of some other Water Inspectors in a number of City and County Councils, some of whom are paid on the Grade Six Staff Officer level.
3. The Union maintains that the issue is one of grading and is not therefore a cost-increasing claim under the terms of the' Towards 2016' Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant took up the post of Water Inspector in 1999 and accepted the rate of pay for the post i.e. Craftworker pay. The Claimant is paid the same rate as all other Water Inspectors in Louth Local Authorities.
2. The Claimant is seeking a large increase to his basic rate of pay. The Social Partnership Agreement 'Towards 2016' does not provide a mandate to consider such a cost-increasing claim.
3. Louth Local Authorities have been advised that they are required to cut 3% from payroll to meet Government spending targets for 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that there is no nationally agreed rate or grading arrangement for the post of Water Inspector. However, it is clear from the information provided to the Court that the majority of such posts are remunerated at above the craft rate.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court has concluded that the Claimant is not appropriately graded. The Court has further concluded that in this particular case an appropriate pay alignment would be with the Assistant Foreman rate. The Court recommends that the Claimant's rate be adjusted to that level with effect from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
Having regard to the absence of any nationally agreed or uniform pay arrangement for Water Inspectors the Court is making this Recommendation on the understanding that it is confined in its application to this particular case and will not be relied upon to support re-grading claims in any other Local Authority.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th August, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.