Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9336 Case Number: LCR13972 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the grading of 3 workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered at length the submissions presented by the
parties and the oral evidence advanced at the hearing, the Court
does not consider that a compelling case has been established that
either of the Unit Supervisors is engaged on duties for which a
Third Level Degree (or equivalent) is an essential prerequisite
or that their duties are so markedly superior to similarly
designated positions in the Institute as to clearly warrant
upgrading. In the circumstances the Court does not recommend
concession of their claim.
As the case of the Assistant Supervisor rests on the position of
the Unit Supervisor, the Court cannot recommend concession of her
claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9336 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13972
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the grading of 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Polio Fellowship of Ireland (P.F.I.) provides
vocational training and rehabilitation for people with
physical, mental and psychiatric disabilities. In 1987 an
amalgamation took place between the P.F.I. and the
Rehabilitation Institute whereby the Polio Fellowship became a
subsidiary of the Rehabilitation Institute.
2. A dispute arose due to the grading of 3 workers formally
employed by the P.F.I. but now employed in the same capacity
by the Rehabilitation Institute. The Union claimed that they
should be graded as Instructors based on their qualifications
and internal relativities. The Company rejected this claim.
3. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on the 14th February, 1992 and conciliation conferences took
place on the 25th May, 1992 and the 13th November, 1992.
Agreement could not be reached and the issue was referred by
the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 8th
January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers' degrees have been central to their work
position and therefore they should receive a degree rate of
pay.
2. The training provided in the Horticultural Unit is of
exceptionally high standard.
3. The Catering Unit in Park House is much more advanced and
demanding than regular Catering Units in the Rehabilitation
Institute.
4. Seminars on certification have been given to staff at the
Institute's National Training College.
5. The reputation of Park House has been enhanced in the eyes
of outside certifying bodies by the staff of the Unit.
6. Management have stated that a high theory content in a
Unit makes the title "Instructor" appropriate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Horticultural Unit only requires a
Supervisor/Instructor trained to diploma level.
2. The Catering Supervisor/Instructor is on the appropriate
diploma scale for her level of qualification.
3. There would be serious consequences for the Rehabilitation
Institute if any of these claims were conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered at length the submissions presented by the
parties and the oral evidence advanced at the hearing, the Court
does not consider that a compelling case has been established that
either of the Unit Supervisors is engaged on duties for which a
Third Level Degree (or equivalent) is an essential prerequisite
or that their duties are so markedly superior to similarly
designated positions in the Institute as to clearly warrant
upgrading. In the circumstances the Court does not recommend
concession of their claim.
As the case of the Assistant Supervisor rests on the position of
the Unit Supervisor, the Court cannot recommend concession of her
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
22nd February, 1993. Chairman
P.O'C/J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.