FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Allowances/re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of six Gangers with driving duties seeking a regrading/allowance due to their requirement to hold a C1 Driving Licence. The Council said the claim is cost increasing which is precluded under the Public Service Agreement.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th December 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th January 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Council decided to introduce the requirement for Gangers to hold a C1 Licence without any consultation with the Union.
- 2. The new duties assumed by the Gangers are more onerous than those they carried out heretofore.
3. The Gangers should receive recognition in the form of an allowance/regrading for taking on the new duties.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a cost increasing claim which is precluded under the Public Service Agreement.
2. The Employees concerned are paid correctly for the duties they are carrying out.
3. Gangers have always driven Council vehicles as part of their duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of six Gangers with driving duties seeking a regrading/allowance due to their requirement to hold a C1 Driving Licence. The Council rejected the claim on the basis that (i) driving duties form part of their job description and (ii) their current grade takes account of this requirement.
Having considered the submission of both parties the Court does not see merit in the Union’s position and accordingly rejects the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
22nd January, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.