FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation DC290/95
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union that the worker, who is presently employed as a Stores Chargehand, should be promoted to the grade of Foreman.
The claim was first served in July, 1990. In 1991, the claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation conference in May, 1991 it was agreed to defer the claim on the basis that it would be discussed between the parties under the Company's "Structuring for the Future". The Union claims the issue was not dealt with and referred it to the Rights Commissioner. A hearing took place on 5th February, 1996. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"Therefore, entirely without prejudice to any on-going discussions between the parties on a Rationalisation/Restructuring of the existing workforce, and also without precedent for the future, and on the basis of the duties that he is currently performing, I recommend that the workers rate of pay be brought into line with that of Warehouse Supervisor i.e., £320.14 per week, with effect from 1st April, 1996 and that he be designated a suitable title within the supervisory structure to reflect his duties and responsibilities e.g., Stores Co-ordinator."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Board appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on 11th April, 1996 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd May, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been employed for 31 years with the Board. He is expected to take care of the port centre, the Harbour Police, the administration block on Bond Road, the canteen, pilot station, pilot boats and the port yard. (A full list of the worker's duties and responsibilities was supplied by the Union). He is on-call on a 24-hour basis.
2. The stores and their contents which are under the control of the worker are valued at approximately £900,000. The worker is closely involved with the clerical division and performs similar duties to the employees there, yet the clerical workers are paid considerably more. The worker is long overdue promotion and the appropriate rate of pay, and the Rights Commissioner in his recommendation endorsed this view.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The responsibilities of the Warehousing Supervisor (as mentioned by the Rights Commissioner in his Recommendation) are far higher than that of the Stores Chargehand. ( A list of the Warehouse Supervisor's duties was supplied by the Board). The grade of Assistant Warehouse Supervisor, with a weekly rate of pay of £286.30, would be more appropriate to the worker.
2. The Warehouse Supervisor has to work on his own initiative when dealing with operational problems, whereas the Stores Chargehand can refer to the Senior Administrative Officer for advise and direction. The goods held in the warehousing department are customer goods as opposed to the Board's goods, and are more valuable. As a result, there is greater responsibility for the Warehouse Supervisor than for the Stores Chargehand.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that, given the specific circumstances of this case, the claimant should be paid the rate of pay applicable to the Warehouse Supervisor (i.e., £320.14) with effect from 1st April, 1996 as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The parties should continue their discussions on Rationalisation/Restructuring, particularly in so far as it relates to the Stores.
The rate of pay applicable to the claimant should be taken into account in these discussions.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
14th June, 1996______________________
C.O'N/D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.