Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Chargehand Cleaner

A Local Authority

Representatives

Jay Power of SIPTU

 Keith Irvine of the LGMA

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00001588

31/07/2023

The Worker is a chargehand cleaner overseeing some 16 cleaners.

The Employer’s chargehand cleaner rate is significantly less than the chargehands overseeing other roles.

The Worker’s Union sought a review of the Worker’s pay but this was refused by the Employer.

The Worker referred the matter to the WRC.

The Worker attended the hearing represented by her Union. Her Union made written and oral submissions on her behalf.

The Employer attended the hearing represented by the LGMA. They made written and oral submissions on the Employer’s behalf.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Employer raises a preliminary issue in that the Worker did not exhaust their internal grievance process. While I accept their position as a broad principle that the WRC should not involve itself in matters which may still be resolved locally, in this case I note there was already extensive engagement between the parties, which included a lengthy written request for regrading which was considered and refused. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Employer came to a definitive view which would not be altered by repeating the same arguments through the 3 stages of their grievance process. I believe it is appropriate in this case to consider the substantive question.

The Worker was appointed to a specific grade and has carried out the responsibilities associated with that grade with the rate of pay set for that grade. Section 13.2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 makes it clear that it not an option for a WRC adjudicator to recommend the alteration of a pay grade. If I were to agree to the case submitted by the Worker, I would be doing just that, I would be recommending the suppression of the chargehand cleaner rate of pay and its replacement with the chargehand rate of pay. It would inevitably affect a wider body of workers.

Further to the submissions made at the hearing, by the Employer, an alternative case emerged. The Employer produced the original LRC agreement from 2001 which set the pay rates for the cleaners and created the chargehand cleaner role.

This states:

With effect from the 1st of January 2001 the Council to establish a rate of pay at parity with cleaners in Dublin Corporation.

……

This agreement also provides for the establishment of a Dedicated Supervisor to be filled by means of competitive interview confined to serving cleaners. The Dedicated Supervisor will report to the Foreman of Works Office Maintenance. (emphasis contained in the original LRC Recc).

The Worker’s Union was clearly no longer aware of this agreement but when they saw it in the hearing they took the view that the above agreement should mean that the Worker should in fact be on the same rate of pay as the “Supervisor Cleaner” in DCC. They were invited to make supplemental submissions and outlined in these that this would place the Worker on a G6 salary scale spanning €53,345 - €65,172.

This would constitute a roughly a 100% pay increase for the Worker.

The Employer responded with supplemental submissions of their own.

The point out the only aspect of the above agreement which specifies pay is to do with the cleaners who were given parity with cleaners in Dublin Corporation.

This agreement was implemented by the Employer at by time when the Worker was employed from June 2004. They submit there is no linkage between pay rates of supervisors or any role or grade outside that of cleaners in Dublin Corporation in 2001.

On review of the above agreement, I believe there is an argument that it provided for the Chargehand/Supervisor role to be set at the rate of the same grade in DCC at that time. However, it is a matter of interpretation. If the Union, after negotiating that agreement, believed it was inappropriately implemented, the point to raise that issue would be then, not 23 years later.

I note the preamble to the 1946 Act which is an act to make further and better provision for promoting harmonious relations between workers and their employers. I do not think I would be fulfilling my role appropriately if I was to interpret provisions, not expressly laid out, of a now historic collective agreement and in so doing recommended significant pay increases not explicitly provided for in that agreement.