FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Upgrading
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the salary scale for the posts of Cafeteria Manager and Cafeteria Assistant Manager. In June 2003 the Union lodged a claim for an independent review of the grading structure of these grades and an examination of the role and job description of the two posts. Management rejected these claims. In December 2003 the Union proposed the re-grading of Cafeteria Manager and Assistant Manager. Management maintains that the parties agreed that options would be explored with the Department of Education and Science. The Department saw no reason to accede to the Union's claim. In February 2007, a breakfast service was introduced and an allowance was offered to the Chefs for co-operation with the new service. No offer of an increase in pay or allowances were made to the Cafeteria Manager or Assistant Manager.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th March, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Cafeteria seating capacity has increased from 80 to 190. An all day snack bar has been opened and in 2007 a breakfast service commenced. As a result of these changes the responsibilities of both employees have increased significantly.
2 In addition to the above services, hot lunches served has increased from approximately 1,235 in the year 2001 to approximately 2,800 currently. This has increased significantly the responsibilities around ordering, purchasing and the handling and storage of deliveries.
3 The Cafeteria because of its uniqueness should be compared to similar type operations in the Public Service. For this purpose the Union compared the Cafeteria with the Rotunda Hospital. When operations are compared over a five day period it is the Union's argument that an upgrading for both employees is fully justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Pay scales for the posts concerned were the subject of a Conciliation Conference in the Labour Relations Commission in 1999. At that time agreement was reached on pay scales and duties and since then the number of students and staff has remained static. The takings of the cafeteria have increased in line with price increases but there has been no significant increases in volume sold.
2 The managerial roles in the Cafeteria are not responsible for budget management or setting sales targets. The manager is directly responsible for the assistant manager and three chefs. All other staff recruited are managed by the Housekeeper.
3 Operational changes introduced in recent years have been to improve service and have had either a neutral or beneficial impact on the managerial roles in the Cafeteria. The breakfast service has been improved and chef staff have been rostered earlier with a corresponding increase in their allowances. There is no change on the working hours or the terms and conditions of the managerial staff result. Despite the increased seating, there has not been increase in people using the Cafeteria as evidenced by the takings which have remained static.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the terms of reference for an independent evaluation of the jobs of the claimants should be agreed between the parties within one month of the date of this recommendation as should the identity of the evaluator(s).
Within a further three months from the date of this Recommendation the evaluation should be completed and the parties should re-engage on the result, should this be necessary.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st May, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.