Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9215 Case Number: LCR13623 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of a worker, for compensation for undertaking duties at a higher level.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the worker concerned did take on work appropriate to a higher
grade. Since the work was not formally assigned, and it is not
now possible to ascertain the full extent of the higher
responsibilities assumed by the worker during the period in
question, the Court does not consider concession of the full
amount claimed by the Union is warranted, but is of the opinion
that she should be paid a sum to the amount of £1,500 in full
payment for the additional tasks carried out.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9215 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13623
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of a worker, for compensation
for undertaking duties at a higher level.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in the buildings office
of the College since March, 1987 and undertakes a wide range of
clerical duties. She was promoted from Grade 2 A to Grade 2 B in
September, 1990. The buildings office is responsible for the
allocation of rooms for lectures, meetings, exams, etc. The Union
contends that the worker undertook duties of a higher grade
between 1st February, 1988 and 30th September, 1990 and is
claiming compensation amounting to approximately £2,000.
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission on the
31st January, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the
18th April, 1991, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 6th January, 1992. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork
on the 25th March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Two workers retired in March, 1987 and June, 1988. They
were not replaced. A Grade 5 worker was promoted to Acting
Superintendent of Services. Subsequently the worker concerned
dealt with the consequence of the changes and undertook duties
of a higher grade (details supplied to the Court). Her
application for regrading was refused in May, 1988. The
worker, however, continued to carry out the higher grade
duties. It was work of a complex nature, and when the Acting
Superintendent was otherwise engaged continuity was maintained
by the worker.
2. The College accepts that the work done (by the employee
concerned) was part of the duties of a Grade 5 in the
Department but has argued that she should not have done the
work. This was stated by Management after the worker had
claimed the acting-up allowance. She ceased undertaking
higher duties when advised that room allocation was to be
undertaken by the Acting Superintendent of Services.
3. The agreement concerning acting up allowance (details
supplied to the Court) states that "payment will be normally
paid on completion of the duty period". The College contends
that as the worker was not formally assigned to the higher
grade post, she cannot be paid. Had she been formally
assigned then obviously there would be no dispute. In all
respects except the formal assignment the worker was asked by
Management to carry out the duties that had previously been
carried out by a Grade 5. The fact that no letter of official
assignment was made is immaterial. Assignments are often
formally made on a backdated basis. As the worker was
carrying out duties appropriate to Grade 5, she should be paid
the acting allowance of two increments. This amounts to £677
(1988), £813 (1989 £672 (1990) a total of £2,163.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College has operated a Grading Review Committee
(details supplied to the Court) for many years. The Committee
consists of representatives of Unions and Management. It has
agreed procedures for job analysis and evaluation. Staff can
submit applications to have their posts evaluated and the
worker submitted two applications - one in 1988 and one in
1990. Her first application was turned down by the Grading
Committee clearly indicating that the worker was not carrying
out additional or higher duties at the time. In 1988 when her
application was unsuccessful the worker did not invoke the
appeals procedure as provided for under the scheme.
2. Her second application, submitted in 1990, was successful
and her post was duly upgraded. Despite this the Union
continued its claim that the worker was performing duties of a
higher grade. This was not the case, the duties in question
were undertaken by the Assistant Superintendent and his
deputy. There were five other workers employed in this area.
There are strict criteria to be adhered to and workers
undertaking higher grade duties are formerly assigned to these
duties. This did not occur in the worker's case. The College
rejected the Union's claim on the basis that the Grading
Scheme procedure has been correctly adhered to by Management
and consequently there is no basis for the claim.
3. The College has a joint obligation, with the Union, to
conform to the procedures of the Scheme which applies to
approximately 200 staff. The College is not prepared to go
outside the procedures in individual cases. If the principle
of the claim was conceded then it would mean that an upgrading
application would be retrospective to the first unsuccessful
application. It would have widespread implications and negate
the basis of any agreed scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the worker concerned did take on work appropriate to a higher
grade. Since the work was not formally assigned, and it is not
now possible to ascertain the full extent of the higher
responsibilities assumed by the worker during the period in
question, the Court does not consider concession of the full
amount claimed by the Union is warranted, but is of the opinion
that she should be paid a sum to the amount of £1,500 in full
payment for the additional tasks carried out.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
10th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.