Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92757 Case Number: LCR14130 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: REGIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE CARLOW (R.T.C.) - and - A WORKER |
Claim for upgrading of craft assistant.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given consideration to the submissions from the
parties. Whilst not unsympathetic to the claimant's case the
Court is of the view that to recommend concession of the claim
would be wrong as he has not acquired the qualifications
specified as necessary for the grade of technician.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92757 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14130
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: REGIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE CARLOW (R.T.C.)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for upgrading of craft assistant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the College in
December, 1974, as a craft assistant. In his capacity as craft
assistant the worker is responsible for maintaining hand and
machine tools in the junior workshop in the school of engineering.
He also has responsibility for preparing materials for use by
students on the instructions of the lecturer. In addition to
normal hand tools, the workshop has a number of centre-lathes,
turner milling machines, surface grinder, pillar drilling
machines, horizontal band-saws, offhand grinders, guillotine and
electrical and gas equipment.
The worker claims that during the course of his employment with
the College, he has been performing similar duties to the duties
performed by technicians employed by the College and whose rates
of pay are substantially higher than the rates of pay of the
worker concerned. The College rejected the claim.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 8th
December, 1992 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
An invitation to have the matter investigated by a Rights
Commissioner was rejected by the College and the Department of
Education. The Labour Court hearing took place in Carlow on 23rd
June, 1993. A hearing arranged for 23rd March, 1993 had been
postponed at the request of the worker.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job description for craft assistant and technician is
the same. The worker is doing comparable work to that of a
technician and would be capable of using sophisticated
engineering equipment if training made available to
technicians was made available to the worker.
2. The worker concerned has provided technical help and
back-up to physics students who have been working at Master
Degree, National Diploma and National Certificate level.
3. Under the terms of the worker's conditions of employment
he contracted to carry out the same work as technicians.
4. The worker has been treated unfairly. He has frequently
performed the duties of technician and has substituted on
occasions when technicians were absent from class and he
should be paid the same rates of pay.
R.T.C.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The technicians in the school of engineering are involved
with students who are working at an advanced level, using
equipment of a higher level of technology. The students
working in the workshop serviced by the worker concerned are
taught basic workshop skills.
2. The essential difference between the work carried out by
the worker concerned and that of a technician in the area of
mechanical engineering, is that the worker is employed solely
to service a workshop which contains only basic machine tools
(manually operated) and which is devoted to the instruction of
basic manual engineering skills. The technician operates with
computers and numerically controlled machine tools, and with
laboratory type equipment, in the area used to develop the
appropriate intellectual skills in the students, in the fields
of both mechanical and production engineering, up to the level
of final year of a degree.
3. There is a substantial difference in the position,
qualifications and status of a craft assistant and a
technician.
4. To qualify as a technician, it is necessary to obtain a
national certificate (or equivalent) in the relevant
discipline. This is the minimum qualification and is a
two-year course. Most applicants will have done an additional
one-year course and have obtained a diploma as an engineering
technician. This position is acknowledge by the Institute of
Engineers in Ireland (I.E.I.) and the successful diploma
holder may apply to I.E.I. for registration with the status of
engineering technician. The R.T.C. would require an employee
with the status of engineering technician or equivalent for
appointment as technician.
5. The worker concerned has an appropriate Senior Trade
Certificate to meet the requirements for the post of Craft
Assistant. He is not qualified for the post of technician.
6. As there is no provision for the direct upgrading of craft
assistant to technician under the conditions of appointment at
craft assistant level, no such proposal can be processed.
7. A craft assistant with the appropriate qualifications is
free to apply in the normal way for any technician post that
may arise.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given consideration to the submissions from the
parties. Whilst not unsympathetic to the claimant's case the
Court is of the view that to recommend concession of the claim
would be wrong as he has not acquired the qualifications
specified as necessary for the grade of technician.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
5th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.