FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CASCADE DESIGN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. Cascade Design , a subsidiary of an American company, is based in Midleton, Co. Cork where it employs 79 workers. It was originally established as a manufacturer of sporting goods. The Company's most popular product is a camping mattress, the "Termarest". A few years ago, the Company diversified into the production of aircraft seating, the "Jetrest". Sales of the "Jetrest" doubled in 1997 over the level of 1996. In anticipation of significant growth in 1998, which did not materialise, the Company decided to move the production of "Jetrests" to another building and sought a Unit Production Manager to oversee this production. An internal candidate was offered the position but because of the slower than expected sales, he did not take up the position until December, 1998. The worker claims that she did not apply for the position of Unit Manager because she did not know what the job entailed. The Union had lodged a claim on behalf of the worker concerned, a Production Supervisor in the accessories area who is seeking the same title and rate of pay as the Unit Manager because it claims that the scope and responsibility of the two jobs are identical. The Union claims that the worker currently supervises ten full-time staff and sixteen out-workers (approximately equivalent to four full-time staff) and that the Unit Manager currently supervises four/five full-time staff. Prior to the appointment of the Unit Manger, the claimant was responsible for supervising the production of ""Jetrests"". She complained to the Company that she could not handle the production of the "Jetrests" along with her other responsibilities and suggested that the Company employ another supervisor. The Company contends that its decision to appoint the Unit Manager was decided by the parent company and not as a result of the worker's complaints, although management acknowledge that these were valid. The Company rejected the Union's claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 4th of February, 1999. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 26th of February, 1999. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 8th of September, 1999.Subsequent to the hearing both parties provided additional information which was considered by the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company treated the worker concerned in a shabby manner by appointing a worker to a "Senior Management Position" to do a job which the claimant had successfully done for five years. The worker had a proven track record of supervising work in the "Jetrest" area, and was capable of overseeing, planning, supervising that particular area and her own area without any great difficulty but, very importantly, without an increase in salary. The Company, in making the appointment in the manner it did, ignored the efforts and substantial work of the claimant over the years. The Company established a position with responsibility for supervising five workers on a higher salary than that of the claimant who had previously done the work and who continued to supervise approximately thirty workers.
2. In the first instance the Union would have expected the worker to have been consulted on the new appointment with a view to establishing her interest in the new position. If this had been the case agreement could have been reached on the issue, and would not have resulted in the worker being put in a very isolated position where her natural qualities are suppressed and her ability to function with enthusiasm and self-motivation is very difficult.
3. The claimant has more responsibility than the Production Manager in every way in that she supervises permanent and out-workers and plans the requirements of her area, the manager is realistically, responsible for four to five workers, and is doing the work that the claimant successfully did for five years. She is expected to be responsible for a greater number of workers with a greater area of production responsibility but on a lower salary to the new appointee. The claimant should be regraded to that of similar status to the recent appointee with a similar increase in salary.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Rates of pay and job titles must reflect the reality of the position. The claimant's position cannot be compared to a Production Manager's position. It is clearly a supervisory position.
2. The Company must be free to appoint suitable candidates to ensure that it can compete effectively in the marketplace and thereby protect employment.
3. In light of the anticipated growth in the seating area, it was decided that it would be more effective to appoint a Unit Production Manager to develop the division and that the appointment of a Production Supervisor would follow when the production levels required it. As this growth has not yet materialised the appointment has not yet been made.
4. The Company appointed a worker as Unit Production Manager in anticipation of sales growth that has not reached expected levels. The appointment perhaps was immature but that cannot be used as grounds to justify an alteration to another job, that of Production Supervisor. The fact that the Company's plan for the commercial seating division has not yet worked out is no reason to alter areas that are working.
5. If the Company concedes this claim, in the absence of justifiable grounds, the other Production Supervisor would also seek such conditions. This would not be financially possible and would jeopardise other production areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has evaluated the submissions of the parties and has examined the additional material provided subsequent to the hearing.
The Court accepts that there are material differences in the management position advertised and filled by the company and the position currently occupied by the claimant. The Court also accepts that the claimant did not fully understand that the new position was to be at a higher level and for this reason did not apply for it . The Court feels that the Company must accept some responsibility for not making its intentions clear prior to placing the advertisement.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the claimant be paid an ex-gratia lump sum of £3,000 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th October, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.