Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88521 Case Number: AD8857 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TARKETT LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 301/88 concerning the upgrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully reviewed the case as put forward
by the Union and the Company's response as outlined above, does
not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and decides accordingly.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88521 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5788
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: TARKETT LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 301/88 concerning the upgrading of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tarkett Limited, Mullingar is a member of the Swedish Match
Group. The Company employs 197 people in the manufacture of sheet
vinyl flooring. In the Company's technical department there are
two senior technicians and three laboratory technicians. Of
these, one senior technician and two laboratory technicians work
together on quality assurance work. The Union, on behalf of one
of the laboratory technicians, (the other is not a member of a
Union) claimed that he was engaged on similar work to the senior
technician and should be re-graded as a senior technician. This
claim was rejected by the Company. The Union referred the matter
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"On the evidence I cannot recommend that the Claimant is
placed on the Senior Technician scale. He has no formal
qualifications as a Technician other then being a time
served craftsman, which although an advantage, it does not
appear to be appropriate to warrant an increase in pay of
over £40 per week.
It seems to me that if the claimant wishes to reach this
promotional level he will have to secure an appropriate
qualification. The Company has offered to pay the fees for
any person taking an approved course of studies, the
claimant should examine these possibilities.
In the circumstances, I recommend that his claim for Senior
Technician fails."
By letter dated 8th July, 1988 the Union appealed this
Recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in
Mullingar on 6th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The senior technician was upgraded to his post
approximately two years ago. Prior to that he had been
performing broadly similar work to the worker here concerned.
When he was upgraded he did not change job nor was there any
noticeable increase in his responsibilities or workload.
2. Last October, the Company introduced a work roster for
the quality assurance area which provided for each worker to
work one weekend in three and have Monday and Tuesday off in
lieu. This results in the three workers carrying out each
others duties on weekends or Mondays and Tuesday. The worker
concerned is, therefore, interchangeable with the senior
technician during the three week work cycle.
3. The Company/Union agreement provides for working on a
higher job.
4. The qualifications held by the senior technician are the
same as were held by him for the years prior to his upgrading
and the lack of them should not be a ban to the upgrading of
the worker here concerned as he was not advised that they were
a requirement.
5. A senior technician is not a promotional position in
that it is not part of the management structure.
6. The worker had to increase his expertise and attention
to detail when the Company introduced polyurethane coating and
he should be rewarded for this.
7. The Company recognised the equal expertise of both
workers when both volunteered to work the summer shutdown and
the Company wished to draw lots to decide who should work.
8. In the past the Company had a multi-grade structure for
the General Operatives but decided that it was unworkable and
upgraded all to the highest grade. They should now do the
same for this technician.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the nature of the work there is a certain amount
of overlap which requires flexibility by the three employees.
The senior technician, on occasions, also participates in the
routine technicians' work. In this situation it is not a case
of the claimant doing a higher grade job but rather the higher
grade performing his functions. The senior technician has
more responsibility then the technicians.
2. The worker here concerned has been a technician for a
number of years and his performance in that position has
always been average. In early 1987 his increment was withheld
for a period due to his below standard performance.
3. The Company positively encourages employees to improve
qualifications and will pay the necessary fees for a person
taking an approved course of studies as well as providing
internal training. The worker here concerned has shown no
interest in achieving any qualifications, which is in stark
contrast to the individual initiative and attitude shown by
some of his colleagues.
4. In the light of his performance, lack of qualification
and ability to work on his own initiative, the Company has
made it clear to the worker that he would not be considered at
this time for promotion to senior technician.
5. There is no vacancy for a senior technician. Even if
there was, any applicant would have to be suitably qualified.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having carefully reviewed the case as put forward
by the Union and the Company's response as outlined above, does
not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and decides accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
22nd September, 1988 --------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman