Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9643 Case Number: LCR15152 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS |
Regrading of engineering clerks.
Recommendation:
While the Company argued that this claim was taken account of in
the Previous Agreement, in which off scale payments were
implemented, it was conceded that the Claimants were not prevented
from pursuing a claim for assimilation.
It is difficult for the Court to make a judgement on the merits of
the assimilation arguments made by the Unions without having
detailed knowledge of the jobs and the systems involved.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties agree an
independent third party, to undertake a job assessment exercise
and to report back to the Court who will then make a definitive
recommendation.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9643 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15152
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Regrading of engineering clerks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim on
behalf of 21 engineering clerks for regrading to clerical
officer class 3. The Unions argue that while the work of
the engineering clerks was originally designed to do elements
of clerical type recording pertinent to engineering
(maintenance) work, the duties of the workers concerned have
become more clerically orientated, particularly with the
introduction and expansion of computers.
Management's position is that the workers concerned have
always been part of the engineering grades and have benefited
from productivity in that area.
Local level discussion took place but no progress was made
and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 7th
July, 1995. As agreement could not be reached the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on 30th January, 1996 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 8th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The engineering clerks' aspiration to be assimilated
into the clerical grades was made known long before the
1986 Transport (reorganisation of CIE) Act.
2. Labour Court Recommendation No. 5459 dated 30th
November, 1979 recommended that these grades should be
salaried staff and carry the same conditions of service
as workshop/garage supervisory staff and qualify in
future for any improvements in pay negotiated on behalf
of the supervisors concerned.
3. The claim for re-grading failed because of restrictions
under the Transport Acts covering entry into the
clerical grades. No such restriction applied to the
supervisory grades.
4. The Unions have always argued that the engineering
clerks had been wrongly categorised as their duties were
more clerically orientated and that individually they
had little opportunity for advancement within the
supervisory structure.
5. Similar claims on behalf of engineering clerks employed
by Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann were conceded by the
Company.
6. The duties and responsibilities of the workers concerned
are broadly similar to engineering clerks employed in
Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus. In the circumstances
concession of the Unions' claim is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The position of engineering clerks has been fully taken
account of under the Productivity Agreement for workshop
supervisors and engineering clerks.
2. This claim is cost increasing and therefore prohibited
under the P.C.W.
3. Concession of this claim would have serious
repercussions for the Company's precarious financial
position.
4. Apart from increases in basic pay a decrease in the
basic weekly working hours from 39 to 36 could result in
a significant increase in overtime costs.
5. Concession of this claim would breach accepted policy in
respect of pay adjustments i.e. pay adjustments can only
be sustained in the context of the generation of payroll
savings supported by new flexibilities and changes in
work practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the Company argued that this claim was taken account of in
the Previous Agreement, in which off scale payments were
implemented, it was conceded that the Claimants were not prevented
from pursuing a claim for assimilation.
It is difficult for the Court to make a judgement on the merits of
the assimilation arguments made by the Unions without having
detailed knowledge of the jobs and the systems involved.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties agree an
independent third party, to undertake a job assessment exercise
and to report back to the Court who will then make a definitive
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.