Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87326 Case Number: LCR11245 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DATAPRODUCTS LTD - and - AUEW(TASS) |
Claim on behalf of one worker for regrading.
Recommendation:
5. While noting that the worker is thought highly of by the
Company, the Court is satisfied that the work she was required to
do did not merit upgrading. Accordingly it does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87326 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11245
CC87235 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11245
PARTIES: DATAPRODUCTS (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker for regrading.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of computer products
and has a three category staff grading system. Office staff are
graded as category 2, which is subdivided into four levels, 2.1,
2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. The worker concerned commenced employment with
the Company in 1977, at shop floor level. In 1980 she was
appointed to a position as Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Input
Clerk in the Material Planning Department. This was a grade 2.2
position. As a result of changes within the Company, including
increased automation, her workload was substantially reduced in
1985. As a result of this, the worker was allocated work which,
until that time, had been carried out by Planners (grades 2.3 and
2.4). After some time the worker approached her supervisor
requesting that she be upgraded to grade 2.3 but her request was
unsuccessful. Further requests by the worker for upgrading were
also unsuccessful. In February, 1987 the worker was transferred
to the Finance Department to a grade 2.2 position. The Union
referred her claim for upgrading to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 6th February, 1987. A conciliation conference
took place on 6th April, 1987, but no agreement was reached. The
matter was then referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 22nd May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union believes that the worker should have been
upgraded to Grade 2.3 in the Material Planning
Department. When she lost a substantial amount of the
work which she had originally been doing, as a result
of automation, she took on work which had until then,
been performed by Planners. Such work constituted 80%
to 90% of her workload. (Details of this work were
supplied to the Court).
(ii) In addition to this work she carried out certain
specific tasks from time to time such as checking
purchase requisitions (further details supplied)
which were carried out by Planners only.
(iii) The worker took on the work because she saw it as an
opportunity to be upgraded to grade 2.3. She made a
decision not to refuse any work which was given to
her. She was commended each year by her manager and
supervisor at the annual appraisals for her ability
and speed at learning new tasks and for the quality of
her work.
(iv) The Union considers that the worker should not have
been moved to the Finance Department. She had been
working 55/60 hours per week in the Material Planning
Department, all of which work had previously been done
by Planners. She should have been upgraded in that
Department.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company recognises that changes took place in the
worker's duties in 1985 but all duties which she
carried out were of a basic clerical nature and were
appropriate to grade 2.2.
(b) The worker made it known in 1985, when changes were
taking place, that she would like to remain in the
Material Planning Department. Most of the work which
she had been doing was eliminated. It became
apparent, however, that the routine clerical part of
the Planners' work could be centralised and performed
by a data input clerk and the worker was employed on
this work. The job entailed inputting and recording
data.
(c) Clerk typists and E.D.P. Input Clerks in the Company
require skills related to typing and basic clerical
duties. These grades are primarily engaged in
transferring information from a given source into the
computer, using keyboard skills. A Junior Planner, on
the other hand, is engaged in the calculation of
material requirements based on a manufacturing plan.
The job requires considerable analytical skills and
mathematical ability.
(d) The worker was transferred to the Finance Department
in February, 1987, as a result of redundancies of
indirect staff arising from reduced business activity.
More than twenty staff were transferred as a result of
the redundancies. All transfers were decided on the
basis of where manpower was most urgently needed and
what resources were available.
(e) The claim for upgrading, if conceded, could have
serious repercussive effects within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. While noting that the worker is thought highly of by the
Company, the Court is satisfied that the work she was required to
do did not merit upgrading. Accordingly it does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman