Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90406 Case Number: AD9047 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNION CAMP (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 437/89 concerning a claim for up-grading of fork truck drivers.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties oral
and written together with the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner.
The Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner
when he states that he is not satisfied that the Union claim that
the workers concerned be graded category A merits this
consideration.
The Court agrees there is some merit in the claim that falls short
of full consideration and must be rewarded.
The Court accordingly decides that the element of the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation concerning the increasing of the
chargehand differential be set aside and that the claim as made be
met by the payment of #4 in addition to the Grade B rate, in full
and final settlement of the claim on the understanding that the
workers concerned operate the keyboard and printer as required by
the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90406 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4790
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNION CAMP (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 437/89 concerning a claim for up-grading
of fork truck drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are graded B and receive #216.40 per
week for two-shift working and #245.60 for night work. On the
basis of their wide range of duties/responsibilities the Union
sought to have them up-graded to A grade (#238.80 for two-shift
and #270.80 for night work). The Company rejected the claim.
Following the failure of local discussions, the Union referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation.
3. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on
the 6th March, 1990, issued the following recommendation on the
16th March-
"The range of duties and responsibilities are indeed much wider
than one would experience in the normal run of the mill
employment. The difference between Grade A and Grade B is #22
and between Grade B and C #8 per week. The increment from B
to A is therefore relatively large and consequently the
difference between the relative levels of work and
responsibilities must also be reflected. I am not entirely
satisfied that the claim merits this consideration. However,
there is some merit in the claim that falls short of full
concession but which I feel must be rewarded.
Accordingly, I recommend that since each of the claimants in
turn acts up as chargehand performing many of the additional
duties and responsibilities from time to time, I recommend
that the differential be increased from 7.50% to 10% for that
reason alone."
The Union rejected this Recommendation and appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held on the 31st August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a significant clerical element in the duties of
the workers concerned which is not the norm for this type of
worker. Furthermore they are obliged to use a computer
keyboard as part of their duties (the Union submitted a
comprehensive list of the appellants duties/responsibilities).
2. The Union is satisfied that based on these duties, there
is a productivity benefit flowing to the Company by way of a
more efficient operation which would not apply if all these
tasks were to be performed manually.
3. Concession of the claim by the Company would be off-set by
the productivity benefits contained in the duties performed by
the claimants. Furthermore, the Union will not submit any
repercussive claims if this one is conceded. Any future claim
would have to stand on its own merits.
4. The Union does not necessarily accept that the jobs are
similar to other Grade B jobs and if there is some element of
similarity to them, they are certainly not identical.
5. The argument made by the Company that the wages of the
workers concerned compare favourably with fork truck drivers
elsewhere is invalid given that the appellants' duties and
responsibilities are much greater than their comparators'.
6. The Rights Commissioner, in his recommendation,
acknowledged that the range of duties and responsibilities are
much wider than one would normally find and that there was
merit in the claim. However as only two of the seven
claimants are chargehands the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation does not resolve this problem.
7. Chargehands appointed by the Company should carry a
differential over and above those who are not designated with
that responsibility but as working chargehands they are also
entitled to the re-grading from B to A. Any plus payments for
the responsibility whilst they are acting as chargehands
should be a separate issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The wages of the workers concerned compare very favourably
with the wages of fork-truck drivers elsewhere in industry.
2. The jobs in question are similar to, and indeed less
complex than, some of the existing B grade jobs.
3. Concession of this claim will lead to repercussive claims
from other groups. Concession will also add to Company costs.
5. 4. Following rejection of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, the workers have stopped using the computer
key board and printer in order to force the issue. The
Company has resisted taking action thus far; however, it is
essential for the efficient running of the business that they
return to their normal duties immediately.
DECISION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties oral
and written together with the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner.
The Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner
when he states that he is not satisfied that the Union claim that
the workers concerned be graded category A merits this
consideration.
The Court agrees there is some merit in the claim that falls short
of full consideration and must be rewarded.
The Court accordingly decides that the element of the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation concerning the increasing of the
chargehand differential be set aside and that the claim as made be
met by the payment of #4 in addition to the Grade B rate, in full
and final settlement of the claim on the understanding that the
workers concerned operate the keyboard and printer as required by
the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__31st__October,__1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman