FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR462/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who has been employed by the Society for nearly twenty years. He works in the process cheese factory as a slicer and wrapping machine operator. In late 1997, following an examination by the Grading Committee the worker concerned together with eight other operators had their posts upgraded with retrospection to 1st June, 1995. The other operators accepted the upgrading from that date but the claimant refused on the grounds that retrospection should apply to him from 1990. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 26th of November, 1998, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"Accordingly, I recommend that the Union's claim for
additional retrospection for the worker fails."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 21st of December, 1998, the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Cork, on the 30th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant's job was first graded in 1989 resulting in an increase in grade from Grade 5 to Grade 6. The following year a new machine and extra duties were introduced and manning levels were changed. When the job was examined in 1993 a dispute arose regarding the appropriate training period for the job and as this issue was not resolved no appeal was granted on the 1993 grading under which the worker failed to achieve an extra grade by one point.
2. Throughout the Company it is accepted that any dispute arising from a job grading exercise is dealt with through the appeals procedure. The worker was victimised by being denied access to the appeals procedure as jobs which fall just short of an extra grade in the grading exercise can be upgraded on appeal.
3. Though the worker consistently sought access to the appeals procedure before the 1997 grading this was denied to him. He is confident that if his appeal on the 1993 grading had been heard he would have qualified for retrospection to 1990. Management acted unfairly in denying him access to the appeals procedure. The recent grade increase, paid retrospectively to 1995, should, in the worker's case be backdated to 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1993 the Slicer Plant Operators sought to have their job regraded but agreement was not reached on the training period required. When major changes took place in 1996/1997 agreement was reached with the Union on the new job description including the training period. This agreed job description was subsequently regraded and retrospection payments were implemented. The claimant also received this payment.
2. It is the Society's contention that this issue has been resolved by agreement with all other plant operators and has been finalised. The claimant should conform with the decision of his colleagues. The retrospection paid to June, 1995, as a result of the job upgrade, is a reasonable and fair one in the circumstances. The Company requests the Court to uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th July, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.