Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88401 Case Number: AD8841 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CALOR TEORANTA - and - ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST147/88 regarding the upgrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that, while the claimant has worked in
close co-operation with his supervisor over many years,
nevertheless the ultimate responsibility still rests with the
appointed supervisor. In these circumstances the Court must
uphold the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88401 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD4188
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CALOR TEORANTA
and
ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST147/88 regarding the upgrading of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1979, a claim was served on the Company for the
upgrading of two clerical officers and a despatch clerk to
supervisors. The Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) at the request
of the Union and Company carried out an investigation and in July,
1980, issued its report. The IPC concluded that the work of the
three claimants was not of equal value to that performed by the
supervisors. Subsequently the Union contested this and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court. At conciliation conferences
held in 1980 it was agreed that the claimants would be paid at
point 5 of the supervisory scale where they deputised for the
supervisors for periods in excess of two consecutive days and that
the original IPC Report would be re-examined. A further
assessment was concluded by the IPC in February, 1981, which found
that the original evaluation still held. In 1987 the Union on
behalf of one clerical officer referred a claim for upgrading to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 18th April, 1988,
and issued the following recommendation -
"It seems to me that on the basis of the Company's statement
that there is a "common set of duties" for the claimant and
his supervisor, that in actual fact they perform work of
equal value for the company. If this was a case under the
Anti-discrimination (Pay) Act 1974, I think a female claimant
would succeed. The claimant has performed this work for 10
years.
In all the above circumstances, I find the claimant must be
given some relief. I am concerned, as is the union and the
Company, to protect the integrity of the integrated pay
structure. The Company has in the past, made extra-scale
payments to meet special circumstances. Accordingly, I
recommend that the claimant is transferred to the supervisory
pay scale on the next highest point on the scale i.e. £15,122
from the 1/5/88. He should then progress from there through
the scale to maximum point in due course".
3. On 23rd May, 1988, the Company appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 24th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker who is graded as a clerical officer and the
Cylinder Distribution Supervisor work in the same office, do
precisely the same job and both report to the same manager.
The worker has never been required to report to this
supervisor and all queries regarding his work are dealt with
directly between the manager and himself. The supervisor
does not check and is not accountable for the work of this
officer.
2. At the time of the Irish Productivity Centre examination
the Company held the view that there were areas of
dissimilarity between the two jobs and that this worker's job
was not equal in value to the Supervisor's. However at the
Rights Commissioner's hearing the Company stated that the
main factors are responsibility and accountability in the
particular requirement of the job (details supplied to the
Court). The position is that in the daily performance of
their duties, both workers are held to be equally responsible
and accountable. In addition, the Company in its submission
to the Rights Commissioner acknowledged that the work of both
is similar or even identical and now appears to think that
the job title itself is sufficient to justify the difference
in pay. In the circumstances, the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner should be upheld.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has a well developed administrative
organisation structure with management, supervisory and
clerical grades. Within the operations' function in Dublin
there are three sub-functions - cylinder distribution, bulk
distribution and cash office - which are allocated
supervisors. There are also eight clerical workers. This
structure was introduced in the early 1970's. Through custom
and practice within the Company and the terms of the Labour
Agreement a clerk is required to perform the supervisor's
work in his absence and in August 1980 agreement was reached
for payment for such duties by the Company.
2. The supervisory rate applies only to those formally
appointed as supervisors and those designated as deputising
for them in their absence. This worker is a clerical officer
and works with the cylinder distribution supervisor. There
could be only one supervisor in a working group and
particularly in a working group of two people as in this
situation.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that, while the claimant has worked in
close co-operation with his supervisor over many years,
nevertheless the ultimate responsibility still rests with the
appointed supervisor. In these circumstances the Court must
uphold the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th July, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman