Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87142 Case Number: LCR11186 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MCCARTHY & PARTNERS - and - AUEW(TASS) |
Dispute concerning the implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9884 and the interpretation of a subsequent agreement.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the parties recognise that this
worker should not be employed exclusively on draughting. The
Union should recognise that the deployment of the worker must be
in accordance of the Company's requirement from time to time
within the range of duties appropriate to Grade II scale. The
Company also should recognise that the worker wishes to enhance
his career qualifications in the area of surveying and should
where practicable facilitate his expectations.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87142 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11186
CC86511 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11186
Parties: MCCARTHY & PARTNERS
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS' (TASS)
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9884 and the interpretation of a subsequent
agreement.
Background:
2. Labour Court Recommendation No. 9884 concerned a claim by the
Union on behalf of two workers for the establishment of a wage
scale and assimilation onto the appropriate point. On 7th August,
1985 the Court issued that Recommendation as follows:-
"The Court having regard to the assessor's report on the
duties, responsibilities and qualifications of the
claimants considers that the Local Authority
Draughtsperson/Technician Grade Ii scale is the
appropriate scale and recommends that they be placed on
the appropriate service related point of the scale with
effect from 1st January, 1985. In the case of the
claimant who joined the Company in September 1976, he
should be placed on the 9th point of the scale, i.e.
#10,243, and progress to the 10th point in September,
1985. In the case of the other claimant, he should be
placed on the 10th point of the scale with effect from
1st January 1985 and progress to the 11th point in May
1985."
3. There was disagreement between the parties over the
implementation of LCR9884 as the Company did not accept the
transfer of the worker here concerned to Draughtsperson/Technician
Grade II without an indication of draughting skills. Arising from
the disagreement over the implementation of LCR9884 the parties
attended a conciliation conference on 6th May, 1986 at the Labour
Court. At that conference the parties agreed the following
statement in relation to the worker's position:-
Having required competence in drafting during my formal
course work, I am prepared to update and enhance my
drafting skills by availing of the on-line opportunity
to work on drawing, under direction, on one of the
Company's current projects.
4. In July, 1986 the Company informed the Union that the worker
concerned would be placed on the Draughtsperson/Technician Grade
II scale at the appropriate incremental level from 1st August,
1986. In November, 1986 the Union claimed that the worker should
be returned to the position of Surveyor which he held at the time
Labour Court Recommendation No. 9884 was issued. No agreement was
reached at local level and on 9th January, 1987 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 24th February, 1987 but no
agreement was reached. On 25th February, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 26th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) Labour Court Recommendation No. 9884 recommended
assimilation onto scale as and from 1st January, 1985.
However, despite the agreement in May, 1986 that the
worker would spend a period of time "enhancing his
draughting skills" the Company kept the worker in a
draughting position.
(ii) By keeping the worker in a draughting position the
Company is perpetuating a serious injustice to his
current career and future career prospects.
(iii) In April 1986 he was admitted as a Member to the
Construction Surveyors Institute (C.S.I.). However,
this examination plus years of training will be wasted
if the worker is confined to a draughting position.
The worker will be eligible to become a Fellow of the
CSI but to do this it will be necessary to submit
details of achievements since becoming a Member. A
full-time draughting position would be outside of this
area and would not be recognised in the sphere. His
professional career is at a standstill while the
present situation continues.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company accepts that the worker has the requisite
skills to warrant his designation as a
Draughtsperson/Technician Grade II in accordance with
the requirements as set out for Local Authorities.
(b) The Company wishes to avail of these skills and, as in
the case of the other worker involved in LCR9884 who is
directly comparable in terms of grade and increment,
the worker is employed as a Draughtsperson/Technician
Grade II on the Company's bridge projects.
(c) A point which is quite separate but relevant is that
the work formerly done by the worker is in the process
of being computerised. The system, which is already
operational, will make largely redundant the previous
work undertaken by the worker. The company has
alternative work in drafting and there is employment
for the worker in that field.
(d) The Company is satisfied that they have at all times
been fair and forthcoming with the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the parties recognise that this
worker should not be employed exclusively on draughting. The
Union should recognise that the deployment of the worker must be
in accordance of the Company's requirement from time to time
within the range of duties appropriate to Grade II scale. The
Company also should recognise that the worker wishes to enhance
his career qualifications in the area of surveying and should
where practicable facilitate his expectations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan.
----------------
18th May, 1987
T O'M/U.S. Chairman