FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - GRAPHICAL PAPERS AND MEDIA UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. 98/99GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed in the process department of Irish Independent Newspapers. In 1995, he was appointed to the position of assistant overseer. The Union claims that the worker took up the position on the understanding that a review of the grading structures would take place and he would be regraded to overseer when budgetary restraints permitted. The Union argues that management had an opportunity to fulfil its promise to regrade the worker in 1997, when a vacancy arose for overseer. It also decided not to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of a manager in 1998.
The Company rejects the Union's claim. It argues that a review took place which resulted in the harmonisation of the differentials of the two deputy and two assistant overseers, with all four including the worker receiving a 10% differential.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"I am satisfied the claimant is carrying out the duties and responsibilities
of his retired colleague, preparing rosters etc. However, I cannot ignore
the fact of the new collective agreement and possibly new structures
being introduced and therefore I recommend that the matter should be
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on the 30th of June, 1999 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 25th of August, 1999. The earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker accepted the position of assistant overseer on the basis of retaining his night rate of pay. He only agreed to relinquish the night rate in the short term on the basis that a review on the upgrading would rectify the reduction in wages.
2. During negotiations in 1995/1996 the worker constantly reminded management of its promise to upgrade his position. Despite an assurance from management in late 1995 that he would be upgraded to overseer he was overlooked for a vacant overseer position in 1997.
3. At the Rights Commissioner hearing the Company's submission contained several inaccurate statements which resulted in the Rights Commissioner being misled. Crucially the outline of the grading structure presented was incorrect (details supplied to the Court).
4. The worker's regrading never took place and management's failure to fulfil its commitment to regrade the worker's position has resulted in the loss of the permanent night rate which amounts to approximately £39 per week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There was a difficulty filling the vacancy of assistant overseer on the 5% differential as the two applicants including the worker were of the view that there was no practical difference in the duties of an assistant and those of deputy overseer which carries a 10% differential. The worker rejected the offer of assistant overseer but expressed a desire for a deputy overseer position.
2. The worker took up the position on the basis that a review would take place. A temporary arrangement was agreed to allow for the review which provided for the worker to retain his night differential as he was required to remain on days to cover the vacancy.
3. A review took place in 1995, which addressed the worker's aspiration, resulting in the assistant overseers, including the worker, receiving the same differential of 10% as the deputy overseers.
4. The successful candidate appointed to fill the vacant overseer position had more supervisory experience and was selected through the formal selection procedure which included the worker among the applicants.
5. The Company/GPMU collective Agreement of May, 1998, regulated and provided for the role of supervision in the process department. All six supervisory staff had an input into this agreement. The worker took part in this collective Agreement and benefited from the outcome. In the circumstances the Court is requested to recommend that no further review is warranted.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal the Court is of the view that the approach recommended by the Rights Commissioner was appropriate in this case. However both parties told the Court that they now wished to have a final determination on the Union's claim. In deference to the wishes of both parties the Court will deal with the appeal on that basis.
While it is clear that the claimant considered that he had received a commitment to re-grading it is equally clear that no such commitment had in fact been confirmed by management. Moreover, given the system agreed between the company and management for the filling of promotional vacancies no such commitment could have been properly given.
In these circumstances the Court does not consider that the claim before it is well founded. The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is amended accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th September, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.