LCR21678

1. The four Kitchen Porters in question are carrying out duties outside of their grade and job description when compared to other Kitchen Porters across the public service and other Kitchen Porters within St. Vincent's Private Hospital.
2. The Union are willing to engage an independent party to carry out a job evaluation.
   
   

The issue in dispute between the parties is the unions claim for a higher rate of pay(grade 3) for four kitchen porters. SIPTU claim that they are carrying out additional duties over and above the duties set down in their job description and over and above the duties that other porters are carrying out.

Union case

The workers covered by this claim have long service with the employer and are paid at general operative band 4 level. In 2009 they moved to new premises and it is their contention that since then management have given them additional duties which are not appropriate to their grade. In the Unions view the duties that they are being asked to do are more appropriate to the grade of chef who are paid at general operative grade 3 level. The Union have engaged with the employer both locally and under the auspices of the WRC to progress their claim to have these additional duties recognised. The Employer had made an offer at conciliation however this was rejected by the members concerned. The Union believes that the workers concerned should be upgraded to level 3 or that an independent job evaluation should be carried to establish the correct rate for the job taking into account all the duties they carry out.

Employer’s case

It is the Employers position that this work was previously done by a Head Porter. When the Head Porter left in 2009 he was not replaced and the porters agreed to carry out the work in question amongst themselves on a rotational basis. The four areas in contention are a) deliveries b) cooking and preparing food c) Pantry stock and d) Handling cash. It is the Employer’s understanding that the main areas of contention are the “intake of food deliveries” and the “cooking of food”. The Employers position is that these tasks are within the duties of a kitchen porter and so do not warrant a pay increase to grade 3. At conciliation in an effort to resolve the issue the Employer had proposed the payment of an annual non- pensionable allowance of €600 plus a once off payment of a one for all gift voucher to the value of €250. This offer was rejected by the Union. The Employer is opposed to an independent evaluation of the jobs as they believe this could lead to demand for same from other groups. The Employer indicated to the Court that there is a National Job Evaluation scheme for this grade in the Public Hospitals and that as its pay is linked to the HSE pay scales it would be obliged to implement any changes for this grade of staff emerging from that process.

Discussion

It is not disputed between the parties that when the Head Porter left his duties were distributed amongst this cohort of workers. The Employer confirmed to the Court that the position of Head porter attracted a higher rate of pay than Kitchen porter. The union accepted that the workers do not carry out the full range of duties of the grade of Chef nor do they have the qualifications required for that position. Having carefully read the submissions of both parties and listened to the oral submissions made on the day the Court recommends that the workers accept the Employers original proposal of an annual non-pensionable allowance of €600 plus a once off one-for-all voucher to the value of €250 euro. The annual allowance to be paid with effect from 1^stJuly 2017.

The Court so recommends

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
JD______________________
23 March 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.