Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89288 Case Number: AD8951 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TECHNICON (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning the regrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the worker accepts that he is properly on
Grade IX., but that in view of the protracted nature of the
dispute the Company pays him at Grade X rate up the end of
March, 1989."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation.
7. The Union appealed the recommendation under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
the 14th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Union contends that the Rights Commissioner erred in
his Recommendation in grading the worker. There is an in
house procedure for dealing with this matter. The
Commissioner was asked to recommend that the terms agreed in
the memo of 18th August, 1988 be adhered to. This memo was an
agreement and not, as the Rights Commissioner states an
initial proposal.
2. Item 4 of the agreement states that an engineer (name
supplied) will be requested to arbitrate on the content of the
job in the event that there is disagreement between the worker
concerned and the person carrying out the job evaluation and
not clarify particular items of a technical nature.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company believes that the worker concerned was treated
fairly in this case.
2. It has never been the role of any third party to define
what should be the job content of any individual's job. The
arbitrator chose to include tasks which were temporary in
nature in a job description which is designed to describe
activities which are current and ongoing.
3. There is not now or for the foreseeable future any
business need for an additional Grade X Technician in the
Printed Circuit Board Testing Section. To confirm tasks
associated with Grade X work (i.e. programming and
commissioning) into a job description on an ongoing basis
would be to institutionalise an anomaly which would not only
add to a very high wage rate (on a market comparison basis)
but would be grossly unjust to other technicians in the
Quality Control Department.
DECISION:
10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties and particularly the terms of the memorandum of 18th
August, 1988, and has come to the conclusion that the Rights
Commissioner was mistaken in accepting the Company's
interpretation of the document which clearly provides for
arbitration on job content.
The Court therefore decides that the arbitrator's job description
should be submitted as the completed job description to the person
concerned for provisional grading and subsequent submission to the
Job Evaluation Committee for grading.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89288 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: TECHNICON (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning the regrading of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as an electronic test
technician since June, 1988. In that position he has worked
mainly in the Printet Circuit Board Test Area (commonly referred
to as the Genrad Room). In this position he was Grade IX within
the Company grading structure. There are two other grades of
technicians in the Genrad Room, Grade X and Grade XI, who work
mainly on generating and or improving the test programmes used in
testing printed circuit boards on the Genrad Systems.
3. In 1986 the worker asked his supervisor would it be possible
for him to train on programming in order to enhance his
promotional opportunities. He was authorised to do so during
slack periods. In May, 1987, as a result of a corporate decision
the Dublin plant was requested to carry out a specific commission
within a tight time schedule. As this function was normally
carried out by Grade X the worker concerned was upgraded to Grade
X to assist in the project. It is the Company's contention that
the upgrading was temporary and was for the duration of the
project only. The Union contends that the worker was given to
understand that at the completion of the project he would be sent
on a training course, after which his upgrading would be made
permanent. The project was completed in November, 1987 and the
worker was paid at Grade X up to the end of May, 1988. (This the
Company maintain was due to an oversight. He should have reverted
to his own grade in November, 1987).
4. A number of meetings took place between Management and the
Union as a result of which it was agreed that a job description
exercise would be carried out. The terms of that agreement was
set out in memo, dated 18th August, 1988 from the Company.
(Appendix 1).
5. The job evaluation exercise was carried out and because there
was disagreement about the jobs content the matter was referred to
the agreed arbitrator. The Company refused to provisionally up
grade the worker to Grade X on the basis that the arbitrator had
acted outside his terms of reference.
6. The matter was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Following an investigation held
on 6th March, 1989, the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation dated 6th April, 1989:-
"Findings
There is no dispute that the worker carried out duties
appropriate to Grade X payment for a period of time. He was
paid the appropriate rate for approximately 1 year (May, 1987
- May, 1988). The Company have stated that his present
duties are within Grade IX. I cannot accept that an apparent
or alleged undertaking to him can circumvent any normal
re-grading exercise. Presumably promotional opportunities
are made available on an internal closed competition basis to
all employees. The initial proposal for resolving this
dispute (the memo. of 18.08.88) was it seems a unique
procedure to try to resolve the issue which did not work.
Recommendation
I recommend that the worker accepts that he is properly on
Grade IX., but that in view of the protracted nature of the
dispute the Company pays him at Grade X rate up the end of
March, 1989."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation.
7. The Union appealed the recommendation under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
the 14th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Union contends that the Rights Commissioner erred in
his Recommendation in grading the worker. There is an in
house procedure for dealing with this matter. The
Commissioner was asked to recommend that the terms agreed in
the memo of 18th August, 1988 be adhered to. This memo was an
agreement and not, as the Rights Commissioner states an
initial proposal.
2. Item 4 of the agreement states that an engineer (name
supplied) will be requested to arbitrate on the content of the
job in the event that there is disagreement between the worker
concerned and the person carrying out the job evaluation and
not clarify particular items of a technical nature.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company believes that the worker concerned was treated
fairly in this case.
2. It has never been the role of any third party to define
what should be the job content of any individual's job. The
arbitrator chose to include tasks which were temporary in
nature in a job description which is designed to describe
activities which are current and ongoing.
3. There is not now or for the foreseeable future any
business need for an additional Grade X Technician in the
Printed Circuit Board Testing Section. To confirm tasks
associated with Grade X work (i.e. programming and
commissioning) into a job description on an ongoing basis
would be to institutionalise an anomaly which would not only
add to a very high wage rate (on a market comparison basis)
but would be grossly unjust to other technicians in the
Quality Control Department.
DECISION:
10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties and particularly the terms of the memorandum of 18th
August, 1988, and has come to the conclusion that the Rights
Commissioner was mistaken in accepting the Company's
interpretation of the document which clearly provides for
arbitration on job content.
The Court therefore decides that the arbitrator's job description
should be submitted as the completed job description to the person
concerned for provisional grading and subsequent submission to the
Job Evaluation Committee for grading.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
__14th___July, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
APPENDIX I
Reference our discussions this morning regarding the grading
issue, the following was agreed:-
1. The worker will complete a Job Description. Should he
require the assistance of a Job Analyst this will be
provided. He may carry out this task during company
time.
2. When 1. above is completed, the Job Description will be
submitted his supervisor who will respond to the worker
re the content of the Job Description within one
calendar week of receipt of same.
3. If there is agreement between them on the content of the
job, the Job Description will be duly signed by both and
submitted to the Personnel Officer for provisional
grading.
If it is provisionally graded Grade X, the job will take
its turn for formal evaluation by the Job Evaluation
Committee, such an Evaluation Meeting to be convened in
due course. If the job is provisionally graded at Grade
IX, a Job Evaluation Committee Meeting will be convened
within 3 weeks of receipt of the Job Description by the
Personnel Officer for provisional grading and the job
will be formally evaluated by the Job Evaluation
Committee.
4. In the event that there is disagreement between the
supervisor and the worker as to job content, Mr. A. will
be requested to arbitrate on the content of the job (if
Mr. A. is not willing to carry out this task, another
Engineer who is familiar with the area will be asked to
assist).
5. On reaching a decision on job content, the stages of the
procedure from 1. to 3. above will be followed.