Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90662 Case Number: LCR13161 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH CABLE AND WIRE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the grading of a Laboratory Technician.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends concession of the Union claim on a "red-circle" basis.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90662 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13161
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH CABLE AND WIRE LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the grading of a Laboratory
Technician.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the terms of a 1983 agreement, increments are paid to
the Company's salaried staff in respect of above normal
performance. As part of recent negotiations on a restructuring of
the grading system, the Company has offered to pay increments in
respect of satisfactory or normal performance. However, final
agreement has not been reached because of a dispute concerning the
position of one worker. This worker was appointed to the post of
Laboratory Technician in 1987. The position is formally
classified as grade 3 but the worker was awarded a salary level
one point below that of his predecessor who was paid at point 3 of
grade 2. The following year he was awarded the same as his
predecessor. Under the Company's proposals for the restructuring
of the grading system it is proposed to establish a new grade
between grades 3 and 2 for the Laboratory Technician, Yard
Supervisor and Purchasing Officer. It is recognised that the gap
between the existing grades 3 and 2 is too wide. Under the new
proposals the Laboratory Technician would be allowed to progress
through automatic increments for normal performance to a personal
maximum of #16,137. This personal maximum salary is less than the
grade 2 maximum and the Union claims that he should be allowed to
progress to the maximum point of the grade 2 scale subject to
normal performance. The Company rejects the claim on the basis
that the worker was granted a fixed salary above the proper grade
3 rate for the job and cannot progress to the top point of the
scale as this would put him on a par with his supervisor. As
agreement on the matter could not be reached locally, the matter
was referred on 30th August, 1990, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No agreement could be achieved at a
conciliation conference held on 18th October, 1990, and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court on 12th November, 1990, for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th December, 1990, in Athlone.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposals on restructuring the grading system which
have emerged after 18 months of negotiations are mutually
beneficial and the Union cannot understand why the Company
seeks to make an employee a 'scapegoat' in this situation. It
is a prerequisite of an exercise such as the restructruing of
the grading system that existing staff should not suffer as a
result of its implementation.
2. Great play has been made by the Company of what they
perceive as an appropriate grade for a particular job.
However, the Company's ability to judge the relative value of
jobs is very limited given the total absence of a job
evaluation process. It would appear that the only factor
influencing the Company is the salary potential of the job
rather than the job content. Since the worker concerned was
appointed to the Laboratory Technician position the job has
expanded beyond all recognition. This has arisen from a
requirement to meet B.S.I. specifications.
3. The Union accepts that the position of Laboratory
Technician in the original grading structure was grade 3,
however, the present incumbent was given grade 2, as was his
predecessor. Initially the worker concerned did not wish to
accept the position as a grade 3 job and it was only after the
Company's Managing Director offered him grade 2 and emphasised
the potential of its salary maximum that he accepted the post.
The actual process of assimilation meant no increase for the
worker concerned. In fact his old position is currently
grossing more than his Laboratory Technician post.
4. The Company has said that progression to the grade 2
maximum is not possible as this would put him on a par with
his supervisor. Both the Laboratory Technician and the
supervisor have enjoyed the same grade for approximately 9
years because whilst the supervisor is technically in charge
the actual reporting line for both is directly to the Quality
Control Manager. All the instructions and flow of information
is directly to or from the Quality Control Manager.
5. The Union believes that the worker concerned should
retain his right to progress to the grade 2 maximum in line
with the original agreement between himself and the Managing
Director. This is reasonable and conforms with the normal
industrial relations practice of "red circling".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned is in a grade 3 position on a point
in the next highest grade in recognition of his personal
performance. The person he reports to is the Quality Control
Supervisor who is in a grade 2 job. If the Laboratory
Technician is allowed to advance through that salary scale he
would eventually be on the same salary as the Quality Control
Supervisor. This would be most inequitable.
2. The worker's current salary and salary maximum, as
proposed by the Company, is exceedingly rewarding for this
position when compared with local, regional and national
salaries for Laboratory Technicians. In addition, he receives
overtime payments, an average annual bonus of #700 and free
Voluntary Health Insurance.
3. The Union's main argument seems to be that the worker
concerned was given a commitment from the Managing Director
when he was appointed 3 years ago, that he could aspire to 10
further increments. The Managing Director did meet the worker
to encourage him to take the post, however, the Managing
Director denies that he assured the worker of automatic
progression to the grade 2 maximum.
4. Under the rules of the annual review system, the worker
may have progressed that far and under the Company's current
proposals his automatic progression is limited to a personal
maximum of #16,137. The Company may still award increases in
excess of that maximum.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends concession of the Union claim on a "red-circle" basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
17th January, 1991 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman