ADJ-00005657

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

A Caretaker

A County Council

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00007853-001

27/10/2016

The Complainant is employer as a Cemetery Caretaker since 10^th January 1979. He is paid €711.86 per week. He has claimed in respect of on call allowance, non-payment of Christmas 2013 leave, St Patrick’s Day allowance and regrading to the position of Foreman Caretaker.

The Complainant’s claim for regrading has been going on since 2008. It was raised his union then and was further discussed in 2011. It was agreed that a report would be commissioned. A member of the Council carried out this report. A key point in the report is the affinity of this Local Authority with Dublin Local Authorities. There was a Labour Court recommendation 7971 issued on 23^rd May 1983 which states,”the Court, having regard to the extra information provided, took particular account of the unique affinity of this Urban Council to Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation as regards working conditions, as recorded in a number of agreements”.

The Complainant is seeking the regrading from Grade 5 of water sewage caretaker rate of €711.86 to craft foreman’s rate of €863.58 per week. His claim is based on the fact that the person doing the equivalent of his post in X cemetery is paid that rate. This falls in the Dun Laoghaire local authority area. The report recommended that this matter is dealt with as soon as possible. The review of the pay grade has to take into account 1) The present pay grade 2) Duties performed 3) level of activity     4) comparison with comparable employments. Duties performed by the Complainant were submitted. Comparisons were made with other cemeteries. The report recommended that the regrading claim should have been dealt with as soon as possible. There should have been negotiations around this recommendation. This has not taken place. The Respondent should now regrade the Complainant as it is not acceptable that they have not dealt with it. He is seeking the upgrade with effect from April 2013 with appropriate arrears paid in full.

This is not a cost increasing claim. People are entitled to move between grades. It was the Respondent that picked X cemetery for comparison. No other cemetery in this county has a caretaker. The audit report shows that the Complainant handles €100,000 in fees that his counterpart in X cemetery does not. This regrade should be implemented immediately and back dated to April 2013.

The Respondent stated that they have have engaged with the union regarding the review of operation of burial grounds in this County, including where the Complainant works. This review of operations specifically considers the methodology and structure for the delivery of caretaker services which includes the human resources required. This regrading claim is predicated on a report which was undertaken in 2014 which predates the subsequent review by the Council. The matter of review of burial grounds has been the subject of discussions at Conciliation which are ongoing. Until such time as these discussions are completed it is not appropriate to engage in this claim.

The Council has rejected this claim. The Labour Court decision referred to above was in 1983 and was in respect of travel only. A regrading claim cannot be based on that recommendation. Much has changed since then, including the status of the Town Councils. A Foreman’s role is a Supervisory role. The Complainant does not supervise anyone. This claim is precluded under the Public Service Agreements. The comparator with X cemetery is not appropriate. This cemetery is on 12 % of the size of X cemetery. Comparison to Dublin County Council is irrelevant. The draft report of 2014 is an opinion only. There is a proposal that the Parks Department takes over the cemeteries. The last Conciliation was on 15^th September 2016. No further meetings have been scheduled but the matter is live.

There is no basis for this claim and it is rejected.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note that this matter has been ongoing since 2008.

I note that the Council agreed to commission a report on a fact finding basis.

This report did not recommend a regrading, but recommended that the application process should be dealt with as soon as possible.

I note that the report makes comparison with X cemetery.

I find that this is not a direct comparator.

I find that the Complainant carries out certain duties and has responsibilities that X cemetery caretaker does not. However I find that the Complainant does not supervise personnel on a direct basis.

I find that the Complainant’s cemetery is only 12 % in size to the comparator’s cemetery and so is not a valid comparator.

I understand that the 1983 Labour Court Recommendation was in respect of travel matters only.

I note that a fundamental review of cemeteries in this County is in progress. However I note that the last Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission concerning this matter was on 15^th September 2016 and no further meetings have been scheduled.

I find that this is a cost increasing claim and it is precluded under the Public Services Agreement.

I find that this matter will be encompassed within the review of cemeteries exercise.

I find that it is inappropriate that I should make a recommendation not knowing whether this position will exist in the short term.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that this claim for regrading fails.

Regrading