Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92342 Case Number: LCR13741 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS - and - A WORKER |
Claim for regrading.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court considers in all the circumstances there are no grounds
to concede the claim of the complainant and accordingly rejects
it.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92342 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13741
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
1946. He was appointed to his present grade of Administrative
Officer (A.O.) in 1979. He was transferred to the engineering
wages office in 1987. It was one of four separate wages offices.
In 1988 a review group (of which the worker was a member) was set
up to examine the feasibility of establishing a centralised
wages/costing office. The review group produced a series of
recommendations which led to the establishment of a centralised
wages office to be established. Subsequently the worker submitted
a claim for the upgrading of his post, on the grounds of increased
workload and responsibilities. Management rejected the claim.
The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation but the Company objected to such an investigation.
Subsequently the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 10th July, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a consequence of implementing the recommendations of
the review body, the wages office was reorganised. This
resulted in a considerably increased workload and extra
responsibility for the worker concerned. He had to implement
many of the recommendations, including the drawing up of new
costing forms/systems, new clock cards and computer inputting,
in order to streamline the work undertaken by a reduced staff.
He also dealt with increased Social Welfare queries,
interpretation of a comprehensive Company/Union agreement and
responsibility for the Harbour Section Wages. The reduced
staff level resulted in a saving to the Board of #20,000 p.a..
While the Board saved money, the workload of the worker
concerned was increased.
2. The worker's claim is based on extra responsibility and
productivity and his post should be upgraded. He dealt with
various duties (details supplied to the Court) between 1985
and 1987 on his own initiative. Some of those would normally
have been undertaken by an engineer. An arbitrator who
examined the staffing structure and decided against upgrading
the A.O. post, did not have sufficient time to study in detail
the case for upgrading of the worker's post. Two other
workers in the Board's employment got special increases in
recent times. One was a Senior Administrative Officer
(S.A.O.) and the other a social worker. The worker feels that
he has been unfairly treated and has been passed over for
promotion on many occasions. He has received no reward for
increased productivity, formulating new work methods, putting
them into effect and accepting extra responsibility.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the recommendations of the review body were
implemented, the workload was reduced. Management does not
accept the worker's contention that there has been any
increase in the workload. As agreement could not be reached
with the Unions on the manning structure for the centralised
wages/costing office, an independent arbitrator was appointed
to examine the staffing structure. He recommended against
upgrading the A.O. post. The worker's involvement in the
review group does not merit upgrading to S.A.O. level and
assignment to special projects for workers in the A.O. grade
is normal practice (details of typical A.O. duties supplied to
the Court).
2. With regard to promotion, all appointments are based
strictly on merit, suitability for the particular post being
an overriding factor. Seniority only applies in a situation
where all other factors are equal. All applications for
promotion from the worker were examined in a fair and just
manner but in each case the most suitable candidate was
appointed. There are other workers in the Board's employment
including A.O.s' with long service who have not been promoted.
The worker's reference to two other workers who received
special increases is not valid. One worker works directly to
the Chief Executive and his position requires special
knowledge and expertise. The other is a social welfare worker
whose rate of pay is directly related to social workers in the
Eastern Health Board and who were recently awarded a
retrospective increase which was also given by the Board to
its social worker.
3. The Board has treated the worker fairly. Any perceived
productivity which the worker believes he has achieved is
fully reflected in the salary he is paid and is covered under
various productivity and relativity agreements in operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court considers in all the circumstances there are no grounds
to concede the claim of the complainant and accordingly rejects
it.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
18th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.