FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay/responsibilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is seeking to have his post and rate of pay re-graded from Craft Foreman to Clerk of Works on foot of transfer of sanitary services functions from Kilkenny Borough Council to Kilkenny County Council. The Union claims that as a result of the transfer the worker's duties have increased considerably, something the Council denies. However, the Council did make an offer of a once-off payment of €4,000 to the worker in recognition of his co-operation with the changes involved. The worker rejected the offer.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd March, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th June, 2009, in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was agreed that the Sanitation/Water Services would be subsumed into Kilkenny County Council with the worker taking responsibility for a much larger Kilkenny-City-and-its-environs water network. The worker's duties have practically doubled (the Union gave details to the the Court), including supervising eight people instead of the previous three.
2. The change in duties to the worker is far greater than "normal ongoing change" as envisioned by Towards 2016.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A number of Borough staff also transferred to the Council along with the worker so some of his previous duties, such as Caretaker, have been taken away from him. This allows him to operate as a Supervisor for his entire area.
2. Following an investigation it was decided that the worker's duties are no different from other Supervisors. He is paid accordingly and his claim was rejected. However the Council did make a very generous offer which the worker rejected.
3. The claim is cost increasing and prohibited under Towards 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Claimant was and remains a Supervisor. He now, however, clearly has more supervisory duties than hitherto. The Court recommends that the Council should increase its ex-gratia offer to €6000 and that this lump sum should be accepted by the Claimant and his Union in full and final settlement of the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th June, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.