Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93251 Case Number: LCR14270 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - and - THE IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim by a worker for re-grading from Administrative Officer to Assistant Principal Officer.
Recommendation:
The Court, having fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds to recommend the concession of the claim for re-grading.
The claim is accordingly rejected.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93251 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14270
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
AND
THE IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim by a worker for re-grading from
Administrative Officer to Assistant Principal Officer.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker made a claim for re-grading in May, 1989. The
claim was reviewed at discussions between the Union and Cork
Harbour Commissioners (C.H.C.) during the following 12 months and
was the subject of a conciliation conference in June, 1990. The
claim was not conceded and was not processed any further.
The claim was raised again by the Union, in December, 1991 and
subsequently in September, 1992. The worker is seeking re-grading
on the grounds that he has taken an increased duties and
responsibilities. The Company have rejected the claim. A
conciliation conference was held on the 13th of January, 1993 at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 7th of April, 1993, in accordance with section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the disputes in Cork, on the 27th of October, 1993,
the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's post of Administrative Officer (A.O.) was
graded at its present level in 1988. Since then, changed
have taken place in the payroll section, which have led to
significant increases in the responsibilities of the post.
2. Since 1988, when the Rationalisation/Reorganisation plan
was put in place, the worker's duties have changed as
follows:
(i) Payrolls were previously produced with the
assistance of an external computer agency - the
payrolls are now produced in-house, under the
responsibility of the A.O. (details supplied to
the Court);
(ii) the Pilot Launch Crew payrolls and associated
pensioners' payrolls were previously operated
from the Commissioners' Cobh office. They are
now the responsibility of the A.O.'s section
(details supplied);
(iii) the Pilotage Creditors' Ledger which was
operated from the Cobh Office, is now also part
of the A.O.'s responsibility (details supplied).
COMMISSIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The A.O. grade (Grade 5) in C.H.C. has a plus 9.18%
differential over the local authority Grade 5 post. Since
January, 1992, the differential has increased to 12.46% due
to the payment of the 3% productivity payment under the
programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Having used changes arising from the introduction of new
technology to obtain the P.E.S.P. 3%, the Union cannot now
use changes in work practices, which arise from changes in
existing technology, to substantiate an individual re-grading
claim.
2. The computerisation mentioned by the Union in its claim,
refers not to a move from a manual to a computerised system
but to a situation where the services of a computer bureau
were dispensed with.
3. C.H.C. salary scales up to Grade 6 are based on those of
the Local Authorities. In Cork Corporation and Cork County
Council, a Grade 5 post is responsible for the main duties of
Creditors and Payroll. The numbers of employees on their
payrolls are 1,250 and 1,910 respectively, compared with 142
in the C.H.C. Some duties performed by C.H.C. Grade 5 are
performed by Grades 3 and 4 in the local Authorities (details
supplied).
4. The previous holder of the claimant's position had
additional responsibilities which the existing position does
not have (details supplied). This counterbalances the
nominally increased workload involved in the Pilotage
Payrolls and Creditors Ledger.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds to recommend the concession of the claim for re-grading.
The claim is accordingly rejected.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st December, 1993 Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.