Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88646 Case Number: LCR12052 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one senior clerical officer class 1, for re-grading to Executive Scale 3.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers the
claimant should pursue this claim within the internal Grading
Review Panel and so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88646 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12052
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one senior clerical officer class 1, for
re-grading to Executive Scale 3.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant has been an employee of the Company since 1962
and has worked in the Outdoor Advertising Section since 1981. He
is responsible for the display of posters on buses operated by
both Dublin Bus and Irish Bus. He reports directly to the
Manager, Outdoor Advertising and supervises two employees, an
acting senior clerical officer 2 and one depotman. The worker's
claim was considered by the Company's Joint Grading Review Panel
for graded executives in February, 1988, and a "no agreement"
decision was recorded. In May, the claim was the subject of an
appeal to the Company's Director, Group Human Resources, where he
was informed that the appeal was the final stage of his claim and
that if unsuccessful, he could not refer the issue elsewhere.
This was not acceptable to the worker and he withdrew from the
appeal. Because it considered the internal machinery more
appropriate for dealing with the case, the Company was unwilling
to participate in a conciliation conference on the matter and the
Union subsequently referred the matter to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, agreeing
beforehand to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 15th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is evident from the claimant's list of duties (details
supplied) that there is a significant executive function to
his position and, consequently, that he should be regraded to
an executive grade. Furthermore, his position can be compared
with the position of Manager, Poster Sites, who is graded
Executive Officer IV.
3. 2. Within Dublin Bus and Irish Bus, the claimant deals in an
executive capacity with maintenance engineers and garage
superintendents while externally he deals in an executive
capacity with account executives, media executives and
production managers in the advertising agencies and with
direct clients and printers.
3. Market conditions affecting bus advertising have changed
over recent years. As a result, bus advertising has changed
to a great extent from annual campaigns to short term
campaigns of six months or, more frequently, three months
duration. Thus, there is a much greater need in regard to
forward planning of bus sites currently on short term
campaigns in order to avoid gaps incurring revenue loss
between campaigns (details supplied to the Court).
4. Changed conditions in a very competitive climate in
advertising now involve more difficult and protracted price
negotiations with more frequent campaigns increasing pressure
on poster fixing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An agreement exists between the Company and the Transport
Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) whereby claims for
regrading to executive status which are declined by local
management may be referred to a review panel which examines
the case and may overturn the local management's decision.
Arrangements also exist for the appeal of unfavourable
decisions of the panel to the Director, Group Human Resources.
This is the final stage in the procedure and there are no
provisions for reference to a third party.
2. The claimant made an application for regrading which was
declined locally. While he is not a member of the TSSA which
has sole negotiating rights for executives in the Company, it
undertook, at the request of the ITGWU, of which he is a
member, to present his case to the review panel. Following a
joint examination of his case by the panel his application was
declined. He then sought the intervention of the Labour Court
but the Company declined to attend on the basis that an
internal machinery for dealing with such claims exists. The
Company indicated that the appeal procedure had not been
utilised in this case and was available if required. The
worker requested an appeal and a meeting to hear it was
arranged. At the appeal he said that if his appeal was not
successful he would refer his case elsewhere. He was informed
that if he would not accept that the appeal was the final
stage of his claim, it could not proceed. He did not give
such an assurance and withdrew to consider his position.
Neither the claimant nor the Union contacted the Company since
but referred the case to the Court. The appeal stage is still
available to him.
4. 3. There is a well-established and tried arrangement for
dealing with regradings such as the claimant's which was set
up under a specific agreement with the trade union. Good
industrial relations practice requires that such agreements be
adhered to by both sides. Failure to do so must give rise to
serious consideration as to the justification for continuing
such agreements. There is, in the Company's opinion no
evidence in this case to suggest that the Company did not deal
with the claimant in a fair manner under the machinery. Any
further intervention in the agreed process is therefore
inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers the
claimant should pursue this claim within the internal Grading
Review Panel and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__30th__September,__1988. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman