Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92370 Case Number: LCR13734 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KLOCKNER MOELLER (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of two(2) workers for re-grading.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submission from the parties,
is of the view that the job content of the claimant who operates
the Computer-aided Design is such as merits re-grading. The Court
accordingly recommends that he be placed on the clerical officer
scale with affect from 1st March 1992 with entry onto the scale at
the 7th point and proceed by annual increments to the maximum of
the scale. With regard to the 2nd claimant the Court recommends
that when he is trained on C.A.D. he be similarly assimilated on
to the Clerical Officer scale.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92370 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13734
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KLOCKNER MOELLER (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two(2) workers for re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the assembly and distribution of
electrical switchgear.The Company's main premises is in Dublin and
it has a depot in Limerick. Approximately 12 workers are employed
by the Company.
3. In April, 1991 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of two
workers who are employed as electrical tracer/draught person, for
regrading by means of assimilation to the maximum point of the
clerical salary scale. The Company rejected the claim. The
workers are currently being paid #164 and #155 per week
respectively. The maximum point on the clerical scale is #231 per
week.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on 13th June, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held on 23rd
September, 1991 and 6th November, 1991. As no agreement was
reached the Commission, with the consent of the parties referred
the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990 on 25th June, 1992. The Court investigated
the dispute on 22nd July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The skills and duties of the workers concerned have
evolved and increased over the years (details supplied to the
Court). One of the workers has been trained and operates
Computer-Aided Design. The Company plans to similarly train
the other worker.
2. The rates currently paid do not adequately reflect the
workers' skills. The workers are underpaid for what they do
when compared to other jobs within the Company.
3. The work performed is of no less value than the work
carried out by clerical/administrative staff. In view of the
workers long service (13 and 12 years respectively) they
should be placed on the maximum of the clerical scale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In 1987 the workers received an increase of #12 per week
following a claim processed through the Labour Court (Labour
Court Recommendation LCR11384 refers).
2. The cost of the current claim, if conceded, cannot be
passed on to customers by the Company. It would constitute an
overhead which cannot be sustained by the Company in view of
difficult trading conditions.
3. As the claim is cost increasing it is prohibited under
the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.)
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submission from the parties,
is of the view that the job content of the claimant who operates
the Computer-aided Design is such as merits re-grading. The Court
accordingly recommends that he be placed on the clerical officer
scale with affect from 1st March 1992 with entry onto the scale at
the 7th point and proceed by annual increments to the maximum of
the scale. With regard to the 2nd claimant the Court recommends
that when he is trained on C.A.D. he be similarly assimilated on
to the Clerical Officer scale.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
11th August, 1992 ---------------------------------
M.D./M.H. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.