Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95526 Case Number: LCR15028 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AUGHINISH ALUMINA (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the regrading of back-up control room operators.
Recommendation:
The Court considers, given the circumstances of this case, that
some benefit should apply to the back-up control room operators.
The Court however does not find that there are grounds to warrant
concession of the grade to the workers here concerned.
The Court recommends therefore that the Company offer of £500 p.a.
be increased to £750 p.a. and that this lump sum, together with
the higher rate when performing the control room duties, be
accepted as a basis of resolving this dispute.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95526 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15028
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AUGHINISH ALUMINA
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the regrading of back-up control room
operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates four control rooms in the plant which
vary in their complexity. They are manned by control room
operators (Grade 4) who are assisted by a back-up team of 17
Grade 3 operators, who cover for sickness, holidays etc., and
who spend approximately 20%-25% of their time on control room
duties. The Union claims that the back-up control room
operators should be upgraded to Grade 4. Management rejected
the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 2nd
August, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 12th September, 1995. A court hearing was
held in Limerick on the 12th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The back-up duties undertaken by the workers concerned
is a very responsible and demanding job which warrants
permanent recognition by upgrading. The present ad hoc
system, about which the Union has expressed
dissatisfaction over many years, is not acceptable. The
Company pays craft workers, required to perform higher
duties, the higher grade on a permanent basis. They
should treat the workers concerned in similar fashion.
2. The Company's offer of a lump sum of £500 per worker per
annum together with the Grade 4 rate while on control
room duties is not acceptable to the Union. The level
of skill, knowledge and expertise acquired by the
workers concerned and the complex nature of the control
room duties merit an upgrading to Grade 4. There is a
continuous need for training and updating of skills and
knowledge.
3. When the Union and Company were engaged in discussion on
flexibility and grading in 1990, Management gave a firm
undertaking to address this grading issue. The Union
understood that the Company's pledge was in the context
of regrading. The Company has failed to make a
reasonable offer to resolve the workers' claim. The
Union has advised the Company that consequential
claims would not follow.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, in its treatment of the workers concerned,
has adhered to Clause 13.4 of the Company/Union
Agreement which states:-
"In the event of a temporary transfer of an
employee to a higher paid grade, the higher rate
will be paid as long as the employee is performing
effectively in the higher grade, ...."
The Agreement has been adhered to and custom and
practice has been that the Company pays the higher grade
for the hours where employees are asked to perform
higher grade duties. This has applied in the case of
back-up control room operators and others since 1983.
2. Concession of the Union's claim would be contrary to
existing agreements and custom and practice. It could
lead to many consequential claims. The consequential
effects on the Company's grading structure would be
unacceptable.
3. The Company's offer of £500 per annual payment, on top
of the acting up arrangement, is a very reasonable one.
However, in the event of rejection of this offer the
Company's position must be that the claim is cost
increasing and precluded under the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considers, given the circumstances of this case, that
some benefit should apply to the back-up control room operators.
The Court however does not find that there are grounds to warrant
concession of the grade to the workers here concerned.
The Court recommends therefore that the Company offer of £500 p.a.
be increased to £750 p.a. and that this lump sum, together with
the higher rate when performing the control room duties, be
accepted as a basis of resolving this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.