FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WACE SPECIALIST PRINT/BURGESS BEZIER (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. Hallmark Cards Ireland Limited was purchased by Wace UK Limited in 1996. A rationalisation programme was implemented which involved 46 redundancies and changes in work practices. In February, 1998, the Company was again sold and was taken over by Burgess Dublin, part of the Bezier Group.
In 1997 the Unions submitted a claim for upgrading from grade 3 to grade 4 on behalf of three employees in the Production Control Centre. Several meetings were held at local level and the claim was the subject of a conciliation conference on the 3rd of March, 1998, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 11th of November, 1998.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the rationalisation and re-organisation in 1997 the claimants' roles broadened considerably to include customer liaison which had previously been undertaken by supervisors.
2. A letter from the Company dated 10th February, 1997, confirms the claimants' increased responsibilities. It also states that any claims for upgrading would be dealt with following a three month training period and two reviews. The claimants, therefore, believed that if they carried out their new duties successfully, they would be upgraded to grade 4.
3. The role of co-ordinator (grade 4) is defined in a letter from the Company dated 25th January, 1979. A job advertisement dated 1st October, 1997, for a position at grade 3 clearly shows that the claimants have added responsibilities compared to other grade 3 staff who carry out general clerical duties only.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the last six years the Company has had to reduce its staffing level from 350 to 150 staff. It has changed hands twice in the past three years and has suffered serious financial losses in the last two years. It, therefore, had to implement a rationalisation programme to eliminate inefficiencies and to ensure the survival of the Company.
2. All employees, including the claimants, have experienced changes in their roles. An additional two employees have been assigned to the Production Control Centre and two of the claimants have since been promoted to team leader. If the claim is successful, there may be consequential claims from the rest of the staff.
3. The changes undertaken by the claimants did not require significant additional skills and did not lead to substantial productivity improvements, as specified in the Company/Union Agreement. In addition, the only grade 4 position is currently held by an employee on a red-circled basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
While a number of issues were raised in relation to the Company's trading position at the hearing, the dispute before the Court is based on the claimants' belief that the additional duties they took on warranted upgrading. The Company takes the view that the new job does not merit the grade claimed.
The Court is satisfied that the correct procedures were followed by the Company in reviewing the claim for upgrading, but unlike previous situations agreement could not be reached in this case.
However, the Court is also of the view that expectations were raised by the Company by the issuing of the letter of 10th February, 1997.
The present system allows that management have the final decision on upgradings.
The Court, given its lack of background knowledge on the job content and weightings of jobs in the organisation, is not in a position to decide the grading of this job or any other.
In similar cases the Court has requested a third party to examine the job in dispute relative to others and report back to the Court.
Having considered all the information supplied the Court recommends that the parties try to reach an agreement on this issue, including the elimination of grade 4. Alternatively, they should allow an agreed third party to do an assessment of this job relative to others in the organisation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th November, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.