Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86963 Case Number: AD8718 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: THERMO KING EUROPE - and - AEU |
Appeal, by the Company, against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning the grading of the job of Pulmax Setter/Operator Programmer.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having given careful consideration to the
submissions from both parties is satisfied that the total findings
of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld and implemented in
total.
The Court accordingly rejects the Company's appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86963 THE LABOUR COURT AD18/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 18 OF 1987
PARTIES: THERMO KING EUROPE
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Company, against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation concerning the grading of the job of Pulmax
Setter/Operator Programmer.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of overland
transport refrigeration at its plant in Mervue, Galway. Eight
workers are employed as Pulmax Setter/Operators. This job
involves the punching and forming of sheet metal. In February,
1982, the job was agreed to be a Grade 6 operation. Two of the
eight are Grade 6, being employed since that time. Five of the
eight are red circled as Grade 7, from the same time. One
individual is Grade 8 since he operates as a training instructor.
Since 1983 workers are paid as Grade 8 for time spent editing
programmes. In June, 1985, the workers applied for regrading on
the basis of increased responsibilities as a result of extra
operations being performed which were not included in the job
description (details supplied to the Court). This claim was
rejected by the Company. In January, 1986, a job evaluation was
undertaken on the basis of a new job description. The evaluation
(based on allocating points to the different factors of the job)
resulted in a regrading of the job to Grade 7. The Union disputed
this, claiming that the job should be regraded to Grade 8, and
following a number of meetings at local level the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the matter on
27th August, 30th September and 8th November, 1986 (including a
visit to the plant). On 11th November, 1986, the Rights
Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"Because a rare type of anomaly has arisen the only way
to restore normality is for all operators to be given a
personal or red-circled grading of 8 from the date they
agree to work to the full Job Description of 27th
January, 1986.
Let it be understood that a red-circled grading cannot
give rise to any other anomaly or relativity claims.
The substantive grading of the job of
Pullmax/Setter/Operator should now be determined through
a Job Evaluation Appeals process. That is, an outside
body such as the I.P.C. ought be called in or an
internal Appeals Committee should be instituted to deal
with the appeal. Whatever the outcome it should be
accepted.
If the result comes out at Grade 8 there is no problem,
if it comes out at Grade 7 or less all those now holding
the personal grade will continue to hold it for as long
as they are on the Pullmax but all new post-holders
would be on the substantive grading".
The Company appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court on
2nd December, 1986. The Court heard the appeal on 28th January,
1987, in Galway.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) In May, 1986, representatives of the workers and the
Union carried out a job evaluation, based on points
and allocated 81 points to the job whereas management
allocated only 71 points (details of this evaluation
were supplied to the Court).
(ii) The Union understood that the Company intended to
accept the findings of the Rights Commissioner.
(iii) If the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner were
to be overturned this would mean a decrease in pay for
the workers which would be unacceptable.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) No job evaluation in the formal sense was conducted by
the Rights' Commissioner. This recommendation related
to other aspects of the situation.
(b) The Company takes the view that the job evaluation
structure is dependent on considerations which should
relate primarily to the proper assessment of the
positions which are disputed. It is not prepared to
"red circle" positions which were the subject of
previous red circling as this undermines the integrity
of the system itself.
(c) There are over 40 jobs operating under the present
system. In this context appeals arise in a small
number of cases and no more than would be expected for
the number of jobs involved.
DECISION:
5. The Court having given careful consideration to the
submissions from both parties is satisfied that the total findings
of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld and implemented in
total.
The Court accordingly rejects the Company's appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th February, 1987 __________________________
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman