Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94551 Case Number: LCR14647 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the grading of Industrial Needle Trade Skills Unit Supervisors (I.N.T.S.U.S.).
Recommendation:
It is clear to the Court that qualification for Supervisor "A"
scale is clearly set out and to respond to the claim would involve
redefining the criteria resulting in a cost-increasing claim. On
this basis, the Court rejects the claim.
Arising from the hearing, the Court is of the view that on the
wider issue of Grading more transparency in circulating the Grades
for each post might improve the feeling of fairness in relation to
Grading within the Company.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94551 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14647
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. Dispute concerning the grading of Industrial Needle Trade
Skills Unit Supervisors (I.N.T.S.U.S.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Institute is an independent voluntary organisation which
was founded in 1949. It provides a wide range of vocational
training and employment services for people with disabilities
and has over 600 employees. There are 9 industrial needle
skills units, engaged in the sewing of garments, schoolbags,
etc. Supervisors are employed to train and develop Trainees
to recognised certification levels with a view to their
securing open employment.
At present, the I.N.T.S.U.S. personnel are paid the "B" scale
(max. #14,667 p.a.). The Union is seeking to have them
moved to the "A" scale (max. #15,978 p.a.) on the grounds
that there is no appreciable difference in the work performed
by the two grades of supervisor. The Company maintains that
there are different standards in terms of qualifications
attaching to "A" and "B" supervisors, "A" being the higher
qualified. The Company also holds the view that the claim is
cost-increasing and is, therefore, debarred under the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme
for Competitiveness and Work.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court, on the 21st of October, 1994, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th of December,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is not debarred by the P.E.S.P. or P.C.W. for
three main reasons:
(a) The claim arises from an illogical system of job
grades which the Union has been trying, without
response, to have Management address for years;
(b) In an employment such as the Institute, where there
is such a hugh range of different jobs and
different grades located in so many different parts
of the country, it is unreasonable for an embargo
to be placed on the right of the Union to seek to
resolve anomalies which affect specific groups of
employees. Due to the complexities of dealing with
so many diverse jobs, these anomalies may never
have had the benefit of being exposed or dealt with
previously;
(c) Management has clearly recognised the validity of
the above argument by agreeing to negotiations in
respect of a number of individuals and also group
claims since the commencement of P.E.S.P. (details
supplied to the Court).
2. Management has, over a period of 15 months since the
claim was lodged, not once given a single coherent
reason why the "B" rate is appropriate for this job.
3. The job of I.N.T.S.U.S. is a complex and demanding one.
It involves sophisticated production methods, quite a
degree of commercialism and responsibility for a
vocational training programme for trainees with
disabilities which programme involves maintenance of
full records, criteria tests, work behaviour assessment,
work-related social skills training, comments on
trainees and participation in certification requiring
liaison with internal and external "verifiers"
(assessors).
4. There are only a small number of claimants and a
resolution of the claim would iron out one more anomaly
in the Company.
5. The claimants have been patient and co-operative despite
lengthy delays by management in dealing with the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Pay scales within the Institute have been freely
negotiated with the Union and are addressed at annual
pay negotiations. The "A" and "B" structure has existed
for many years and increases have been negotiated and
applied to our payment system over this time. The
P.E.S.P. and P.C.W. exist to provide cost-certainty for
their duration. This claim is cost-increasing and thus
debarred by P.E.S.P. and P.C.W. Both parties utilised
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. to address a range of concerns
regarding pay structure and pay levels in the Institute.
Clause 3 was paid in full and in the Institute's view it
is not open to the Union to process further pay
adjustment claims for groups of staff as in this case.
2. In order to qualify for "A" scale payments Supervisors
must be qualified Craft Trade persons having completed a
recognised designated apprenticeship and hold Junior and
Senior Trade Certificates or have completed a minimum of
2 years' full time education at third level and hold a
relevant qualification, i.e., a Diploma.
3. It is reasonable to reward workers for the time they
have spent attaining educational qualifications.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that qualification for Supervisor "A"
scale is clearly set out and to respond to the claim would involve
redefining the criteria resulting in a cost-increasing claim. On
this basis, the Court rejects the claim.
Arising from the hearing, the Court is of the view that on the
wider issue of Grading more transparency in circulating the Grades
for each post might improve the feeling of fairness in relation to
Grading within the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd December, 1994 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.