FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD GAIS EIREANN - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Increase in pay due to alleged increased responsibility because of the non-appointment of a supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company currently employs six Communications and Instrumentation Technicians (C & I Technicians) who are classified as Craftsperson/Technician (CT) for salary purposes. They are paid at the maximum of the Grade III CT scale. In 1986 the C & I Supervisor was absent on sick leave and he later retired. The Company has decided not to fill the post. The Union is seeking pay increases for the C & I Technicians on the grounds that they now have responsibilities previously held by the C & I Supervisor. In addition, the Union claims that, in a comparison with similar graded mechanical technicians (details supplied), their additional duties show that their current grade is no longer appropriate. The Company agrees that there have been changes in work practices but maintains that existing agreements provide for change and that this is reflected in the current salary scales. The Company also maintains that the additional responsibilities are dealt with by the C & I Engineer.
The dispute was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 28th June, 1995, and 30th August, 1995. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24th April, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on 30th October, 1996, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has previously stated that "the duties of these technicians relate solely to maintenance work" and that "regrading is only appropriate where extra responsibilities /duties are required to be undertaken or where major changes in duties occur". There is no doubt that the staff concerned have accepted additional responsibilities and changes to their duties.
2. The job specification for C & I Technicians has changed dramatically over the years. Previously they reported to the C & I Supervisor whose responsibilities they now carry out. The minimum standard of education required has risen to a diploma at 3rd level. This is not reflected in the salary levels. A salary survey carried out by the Company in 1992 showed that the C & I Technicians were out of line with similar positions elsewhere and that Technician H would be a more appropriate grade.
3. The Union's claim is non-cost increasing, as the savings accruing to the Company from the non-appointment of a supervisor are in excess of £25,000 per annum. This would cover the increase in salary to the six C & I Technicians.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim was duly processed through the normal in-Company regrading procedure but insufficient grounds exist to warrant a regrading. This is only appropriate and justifiable where there has been a substantial enlargement of duties and/or where significant additional responsibilities are involved.
2. A special 3% increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. was paid in 1992 for ongoing co-operation with the introduction of new equipment, new technology and new work practices. Current rates of pay compare very favourably with those in other companies for like positions and are fully commensurate with the level of qualifications, skill, knowledge and responsibility required of C & I Technicians.
3. The Company is about to commence a process of national negotiations with all representative unions. A job evaluation will be carried out to identify any anomalies which may exist within the existing grading structure. These will then be addressed in the context of a new national pay structure.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties arrange for the jobs concerned to be evaluated in terms of additional demands and responsibilities placed on the claimants as a consequence of the suppression of a supervisory post.
The parties should jointly agree on the assessor.
They should further discuss the matter in the light of the assessor's report.
In the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement, the Court is prepared to review progress and to issue a recommendation.
The parties should seek to bring the matter to a conclusion within a period of two months from the date of issue of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
22nd November, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.