Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95481 Case Number: AD9567 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CROWN EQUIPMENT (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW98/95 concerning a dispute regarding the job evaluation of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court, having carefully considered the evidence submitted and
having also examined the job descriptions submitted, has concluded
that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95481 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CROWN EQUIPMENT
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW98/95
concerning a dispute regarding the job evaluation of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Crown Equipment is an engineering Company which is involved
in the manufacture of forklifts, mainly for the export
market.
The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a Grade 4,
Group 2 welder. The Union argues that the worker's job
description (details supplied) clearly places him in the
Group 3, Grade 5 category of welders and is seeking payment
of the appropriate Grade 5 rates of pay on behalf of the
worker.
The matter was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
investigation in March, 1994. The Rights Commissioner
recommended that the duties and responsibilities of the
worker be the subject of an evaluation by the internal job
evaluation committee and refer back to a Rights Commissioner
if the parties failed to resolve the issue.
As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred back to
a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner's findings
and recommendation are as follows:-
"Findings
I am not in a position to challenge the conclusion of
the internal evaluation committee. I have neither the
knowledge not the expertise to pronounce upon
appropriate Grades. I consider that the Union and the
worker should accept the conclusion of the committee.
Recommendation
I recommend that the worker accepts that his present
Grade is correct."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 22nd August, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Galway on 13th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner failed to consider the worker's
willingness to carry out tasks over and above his
present grade. This is an anomaly that the job
evaluation procedure is unable to address.
2. The worker carries out his tasks and duties in
accordance with the specifications laid down in the
Group 3, Grade 5 job description. The Company
refuses to pay him the appropriate rate of pay for the
job.
3. The job evaluation agreement provides that workers be
paid in accordance with the functions they perform. It
was never intended to create anomalies between workers
doing like work. In the circumstances the Court is
requested to recommend that the worker's case be treated
on an individual basis in order to address the anomaly
which has been created.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker originally brought the claim before the
Rights Commissioner, the Rights Commissioner recommended
that the worker's job should be evaluated by the
internal job evaluation committee. The committee
recommended that Grade 4 was the appropriate grade for
the job.
2. At the second Rights Commissioner's investigation, the
Rights Commissioner upheld the recommendation of the
internal job evaluation committee. In the circumstances
the Company requests the Court to reject the Union's
appeal.
DECISION:
The Court, having carefully considered the evidence submitted and
having also examined the job descriptions submitted, has concluded
that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman