Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95482 Case Number: AD9569 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CROWN EQUIPMENT (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal against Right Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW99/95 concerning a dispute regarding the job evaluation of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having examined the evidence presented, the Court has concluded
that the claimant is filling a post which was graded as 4 even
though the previous occupant had been paid at a higher Grade 5
rate. In examining the evidence it became clear that a number of
anomalies, as between the graded jobs and rates of pay, have been
created and in the Court's view this together with a breakdown in
communications between management and shop floor representatives
has given rise to this dispute. Accordingly, the Court would urge
management to address this problem as a matter of urgency.
In accordance with paragraph 1 above the Court rejects the Union's
appeal but would recommend to the Company that the claimant be
appointed to the first available Grade 5 vacancy.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95482 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6995
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 against Right Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW99/95 concerning a dispute regarding the job evaluation of
a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Crown Equipment is an engineering Company 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 dispute before the Court concerns the
Union's claim on behalf of the worker for the Grade 5, Group
3 rate of pay. The Union claims that since 1992 the worker
has filled a Group 3, Grade 5 position. The Company rejects
the claim.
The matter was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
hearing in late 1992. The Rights Commissioner recommended
that the worker's job be referred to the joint job evaluation
appeals mechanism and for both sides to abide by its
findings.
The appeals committee could not rule on the dispute because
it did not meet its terms of reference. The dispute was
referred back to the Rights Commissioner. The Rights
Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"Findings
It is my belief that certain jobs and duties attract
defined Grades. Persons performing those jobs may hold
a higher Grade on a personal basis. Personal in that
event must be underlined. A personal rate is just that,
and it does not pass to any following incumbent on a
particular job. In this instance I do not see that the
worker has established a right to Grade 5.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Union and the worker accept 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 job evaluation appeals committee was not able to
deal with the issue on the basis that this was not a
change of job description but clearly a case of the
worker concerned taking over a position for which the
previous holder was paid the appropriate Grade 5 rate of
pay.
2. The Rights Commissioner's decision not to recommend
concession of the Union's claim was based on his
understanding that the previous worker held the rate on
a personnel basis.
3. The Union rejects the Rights Commissioner's findings on
the basis that the previous holder of the position was
not listed on the Company's list of red-circled workers.
4. The worker has been treated unfairly by the Company. In
the circumstances the Union's claim for payment of Group
3, Grade 5 rate of pay with retrospection is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no justification in the Union's claim. The
previous holder of the position held the Grade 5 rate of
pay on a personnel basis. He had transferred out of
Grade 5 duties along with others at the Company's
request. In circumstances where the Company move
workers to lower grade jobs they retain the higher rate
on a personnel basis.
2. The Company requests the Court to uphold the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and recognise that the
worker's present position of Grade 4 is correct and that
a grade retained on a personnel basis is not
transferable.
DECISION:
Having examined the evidence presented, the Court has concluded
that the claimant is filling a post which was graded as 4 even
though the previous occupant had been paid at a higher Grade 5
rate. In examining the evidence it became clear that a number of
anomalies, as between the graded jobs and rates of pay, have been
created and in the Court's view this together with a breakdown in
communications between management and shop floor representatives
has given rise to this dispute. Accordingly, the Court would urge
management to address this problem as a matter of urgency.
In accordance with paragraph 1 above the Court rejects the Union's
appeal but would recommend to the Company that the claimant be
appointed to the first available Grade 5 vacancy.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman