Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92337 Case Number: LCR13714 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH STEEL LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Promotion.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the circumstances which have led to this
case the Court takes the view that the Company has effectively
established a new grade, entrance to which should be open to the
confidential typists by reason of the criteria specific to the
work of confidential typists and not as a result of changes in the
work or responsibilities of the people to whom they are attached.
The Court recommends that the Company and the Union negotiate and
agree these criteria and when such agreement is reached the duties
of the worker directly involved should be examined and she should
be graded accordingly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92337 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13714
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH STEEL LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute commenced employment with
the Company as a typist in 1964. In 1965, she became a shorthand
typist and in 1970, she was promoted to the position of
confidential typist, a position she currently holds. For the past
13 years she has worked to the assistant general manager. In 1989
management changes resulted in a restructuring of the duties of
the assistant general manager and the promotion of another member
of management to the newly-created position of deputy chief
executive officer. The deputy chief executive officer brought his
secretary with him on promotion and due to an increase in her
duties she was promoted to the newly-created position of senior
confidential typist. The assistant general manager and the worker
concerned retained their existing conditions. The Union claims
that the position of the worker concerned should also be upgraded.
The Company rejected the claim. Local level discussion failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 26th
February, 1992 and 28th February, 1992. A proposal that the
matter be referred to a Rights Commissioner was rejected by the
Company. As no agreement could be reached the matter was referred
to the Labour Court on 5th June, 1992. The Court hearing took
place on 9th July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The status of the two managers is not dissimilar and the
work that the worker concerned carries out is at least
equivalent to that of her counterpart.
2. The worker concerned has taken on substantial extra work
as a result of the restructuring at management level. The
level of work and the volume of work more than justify
promotion.
3. The worker concerned, as the senior secretary in the
Company, should have been given an opportunity to apply for
the job of senior confidential secretary. It is normal
procedure for promotional positions to be advertised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over a period of months the deputy chief executive officer
delegated extra duties and responsibilities to his secretary.
The scope of her job expanded to a situation where a
considerable proportion of her duties was outside the range of
duties normally performed by a confidential secretary. In
recognition of the fact that she had filled the expanded
position satisfactorily, her post was regraded.
2. The duties carried out by the worker concerned are duties
proper to her position as a confidential secretary.
3. There are two other employees in the grade of confidential
typist and the Union has agreed that it would not refuse to
lodge claims on their behalf if the current claim should be
granted. This could be construed as a precedent whereby
future promotions from any grade could be followed by claims
from employees in that grade.
4. Regrading of posts where the current incumbent has
expanded the duties outside those normally carried out by
persons in that grade, has been a common feature over the
years. It has not been the practice to advertise such
regraded posts.
5. Seniority has never been an over-riding factor in the
selection of candidates for promotion and no Union has
previously submitted such a claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the circumstances which have led to this
case the Court takes the view that the Company has effectively
established a new grade, entrance to which should be open to the
confidential typists by reason of the criteria specific to the
work of confidential typists and not as a result of changes in the
work or responsibilities of the people to whom they are attached.
The Court recommends that the Company and the Union negotiate and
agree these criteria and when such agreement is reached the duties
of the worker directly involved should be examined and she should
be graded accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
-------------------------
27th July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.