FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Re-Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Union is that 2 of its members are working as, and in conjunction with, Teagasc research and technical people and, therefore, should be upgraded to the position of technician.
The 2 workers are qualified butchers and are assigned to do butchery duties at the national food centre. On the 10th of October, 1995, their claim to be graded at technician level was rejected by Teagasc on the grounds that they did not have the necessary qualifications.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 24th of April, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of October, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of January, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 2 workers concerned are the only ones in their area classed as operatives, although they work constantly in a research and technical environment. Their work is multi-skilled and must be carried out in a precise and exact manner to required specifications (a complete list of the workers' duties and skills was supplied to the Court). Both workers have qualifications which go above the level of skill required by operatives.
2. The duties carried out by the workers are of a scientific and experimental nature. They have been involved in experimental work in meat plants throughout the country. A butcher and a baker in the same department as the 2 workers concerned are already being paid a technical rate. There would be no knock-on effect as Teagasc has suggested. Both workers have approximately 17 years service, the bulk of which was worked as career grade technicians.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The duties of the 2 workers are appropriate to that of skilled butchers. They do not work at levels which would equal those of research technicians in Teagasc. Technicians are involved in the planning of experimental work and are responsible for obtaining data from experiments, and presenting it to research staff. The 2 workers concerned do not carry out these duties.
2. The minimum educational qualification for entry to the technician grades is a third level qualification e.g. NCEA diploma level. This is important in maintaining the highest professional standards in the research programmes. The 2 workers hold trade qualifications which are not at NCEA diploma level. The 2 workers are paid above the appropriate rate of qualified butchers, a total of £16,326 per annum.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all the information presented, and the background to this case, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
21st January, 1998______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.