FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DATAPRODUCTS (DUBLIN) (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Re-grading of 6 technicians.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced its operations in Dublin in the 1960s manufacturing core memories for computers. As this technology became obsolete the Company switched to the manufacture of computer printers. It has since moved mainly to the manufacture of powertools. In the mid 1980s it employed 300 people of which approximately 80 were technicians. There were 2 grades - Senior Technician and Technician.
The number of technicians at present is 7 - 6 Technicians and 1 Senior Technician and all are employed in the Company's repair, refurbishment and spares department.
The Union claims that the 6 Technicians should be up-graded to Senior Technician status. It claims that the functions, roles and responsibilities of Technicians today bear no resemblance to those of 25 years ago.
The Company rejects the claim and states that there is no basis for the Union's claim. It does not accept that that the role of Technician has fundamentally changed to warrant promotion to the grade of Senior Technician.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th February, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 30th July, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The functions of Technicians have expanded greatly from Testing, Repairing and Calibrating to various other functions such as Telephone Consultancy, Customer Service, Self Training and Adaptability.
2. The Company has accepted that given the reduced number of Technicians the repair and refurbishment department could not function if the 6 Technicians only worked to their job descriptions.
3. As a result of rationalisation/upskilling all the Technicians are equally competent to do the same work. There is now no difference between Senior Technician and Basic Technician.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Senior Technician is a person with long expertise and knowledge to whom others defer when decisions on appropriate technical decisions are needed.
2. There is no validity in the claim nor any merit in the case for promotions put forward by the Union or justification for the cost increase involved.
3. The claim is a cost increasing one and is therefore debarred under the current national wage agreement.
4. The Company cannot afford to concede this claim given its current financial difficulties. Furthermore, concession of the claim would have knock-on effects throughout the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
However, the Court recommends that at some stage in the future, when the financial state of the Company has improved, the parties should discuss the grading structure problems, particularly at the top grade.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th August, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.