Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93518 Case Number: LCR14287 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Re-grading.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and evidence
submitted at the oral hearing, the Court has come to the
conclusion that any additional responsibility which the claimants
may have acquired since the last valuation of their job is not
such as to warrant concession of their claim for upgrading of
their salary.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93518 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14287
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as surveyors in the Peat
Energy Division of Bord Na Mona. In July, 1991 the Union
submitted a claim on behalf of the workers concerned for
re-grading to technical assistant 2C level which, in the current
divisional structure, embraces a number of positions. These
include draughtsman/technician, a position which the Union claims
has similar duties to that of surveyor. The Board rejected the
claim. The present salary scales of the two grades are:-
Surveyor #10,241 - #15,262
Technical assistant #13,044 - #19,933
A similar claim was the subject of a Labour Court investigation
and recommendation in January, 1987. In LCR 10865, the Labour
Court recommended that the salary scale of the surveyors be
adjusted upwards to a maximum slightly below that of technical
assistants.
Since 1987, the Board took a decision to decentralise and
divisionalise its operations. Three separate divisions were
formed, namely, Peat Energy, Solid fuels and Horticulture. A
decision was taken in conjunction with this to place its survey
operations within the Peat Energy division and specifically in the
Civil Engineering and Environmental Control Department. Arising
from divisionalisation, the new position of technician/draughtsman
was created and the existing civil engineering draughtsman was
re-graded into this scale which is now a 2A equivalent.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences took place on 12th January, 1993 and 14th
July, 1993 but no progress was made and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 16th August, 1993. The Labour Court hearing
took place in Tullamore on 9th November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work of draughtsmen and surveyors has always been
closely related in terms of the skills required to carry out
the work and also in terms of their function within the
organisation.
2. Both jobs have developed considerably over the years as
a result of the changes in business and technological
developments.
3. A comparison of the job descriptions of the two
positions shows that the two groups differ mainly in the
location at which their work is carried out. The
draughtsman/technician positions are generally located at the
central office of the engineering sector, while the surveyors
cover the full geographical extent of the Board's operations.
4. The decline in the number of surveyors from 28 in 1987
to 4 at the present time has resulted in increased
responsibilities for the surveyors.
5. The previous 2% differential in the salary scales of the
two positions reflected the skills and responsibilities of
the jobs.
6. There is no justification for the increase in the
differential of the two positions. The changes in terms of
the use of technology and increased responsibility which the
Board claims have been reflected in the
draughtsman/technician scale have also affected the
surveyors.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been no change or increase in the duties and
responsibilities of surveyors since the 1986 evaluation which
would justify a re-grading.
2. The duties and responsibilities of grades on the
technical assistant 2C scale are significantly greater than
those of surveyors.
3. The requirement for surveying is reducing and any cost-
increase can only lead to a further reduction in the level of
this service, which can be sold outside the Peat Energy
Division.
4. Concession of this claim would, as a minimum, result in
immediate knock-on claims from the grade of survey team
leaders and from the holders of those positions currently
graded at technical assistant 2C level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and evidence
submitted at the oral hearing, the Court has come to the
conclusion that any additional responsibility which the claimants
may have acquired since the last valuation of their job is not
such as to warrant concession of their claim for upgrading of
their salary.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th December 1993 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.