Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94138 Case Number: LCR14427 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising from a claim for re-grading.
Recommendation:
5. Although it is clear that the content of the claimants' jobs
has changed, the Court does not consider that this has led to any
appreciable increase in the level of responsibility involved in
the jobs. In the circumstances the Court does not find grounds to
justify concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94138 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14427
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from a claim for re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of 3 supervisors in the
locomotive running-shed for re-grading from grade "B"
shift-supervisor to grade "C" shift-supervisor. The claim is
based on the argument that since their appointment, the
supervisors have assumed additional duties, i.e. (i) the booking
on/off of guards in addition to drivers (ii) the handling
guard-driver communications (G.D.C.) (iii) the carrying out
functions previously carried out by a shed-clerk. Until 1990, the
staff in the area consisted of 1 grade 'C' day-supervisor, 2
shift-supervisors and 1 shed-clerk. Following a request by the
day-supervisor to transfer to a 5-day week, the Company changed
its staff to 1 day-supervisor plus 3 shift-supervisors. The Union
claimed upgrading for all 4 supervisors. The claim was successful
for the grade 'C' day-supervisor but was rejected for the 3
shift-supervisors. The Company's position is that their duties
are proper to grade 'B' shift-supervisors.
3. The re-grading claim was referred to the Company's internal
re-grading committee (comprising management and trade union
representatives) but was not successful.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 3rd of February,
1994, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 8th of March, 1994, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 8th of April,
1994, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 3 shift-supervisors were not informed at interview
that they would be required to carry out the shed-clerk's
duties (details supplied to the Court). The Company disputes
the Union's position on this matter but has failed to produce
any evidence or interview-notes to support its position.
2. The additional duties which the day-supervisor was
required to carry out ( and for which he was re-graded ) are
similar to the additional duties which the 3 shift-supervisors
are required to carry out. Accordingly, it is reasonable that
they too should be re-graded.
3. The duties of the shift-supervisors include the signing
on/off of guards whereas previously only drivers were required
to be supervised. There is considerable additional
responsibility in the issuing of G.D.C. equipment and in the
monitoring of the working-order of the equipment.
4. The two-grade gap between supervisory levels only exists
in the Inchicore depot. The re-grading of the 3 shift-
supervisors would not lead to repercussive claims against the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the candidates for the posts were interviewed, they
were advised that it was intended to re-deploy the shed-clerk
and that they would be required to carry out his duties. The
shed-clerk is a lower grade then grade "B" shift-supervisor.
None of the elements of the shed-clerk's duties could be
classified as being more responsible than normal grade "B"
shift-supervisor's work. Claims for re-grading are considered
only if its is shown that staff involved accept additional
responsibility. Staff are never re-graded on foot of
additional work which they undertake.
2. No additional responsibility was taken on by the shift-
supervisors when supervising the signing on/off of guards as
they already have responsibility for the signing on/off of
locomotive drivers.
3. The issuing of G.D.C. equipment requires the assuming of
no additional responsibilities which would warrant re-grading.
The responsibility for the maintenance of the equipment, which
would warrant re-grading, falls to the day-supervisor.
4. The grading of the supervisory structure in the
locomotive-shed at Inchicore is similar to that in other
locations in the Dublin-area. There would be serious
repercussions for the Company in the Dublin-area and beyond,
if the re-grading claim was conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Although it is clear that the content of the claimants' jobs
has changed, the Court does not consider that this has led to any
appreciable increase in the level of responsibility involved in
the jobs. In the circumstances the Court does not find grounds to
justify concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
4th May, 1994 ----------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.