FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN, GALWAY - AND - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR710/99/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim, on behalf of one worker, a job-sharing Clerical Assistant Class 1, in the Company's Galway booking office, for regrading to Clerical Officer Class 3, on the grounds that she has taken on significantly increased responsibilities since her regrading from Clerical Assistant Class 2, in January, 1995. The claim was rejected by the Company, in June, 1997. Following the rejection of such a claim, the normal course of action for the Union would be to refer the matter to the Joint Committee on Grading, which has not, however, convened since July, 1997, due to entirely separate developments at the Company. Accordingly, the Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner, for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner found that, while he could not say whether or not the changes in the worker's duties were as significant as claimed, the Joint Committee on Grading would be the appropriate body to deal with the case, if it were still operational.
In the absence of the Committee, the Rights Commissioner was of the view that the claim should be examined by an appropriate third party. He recommended, on the 20th March, 2000, that the parties agree that the worker's current duties be examined formally by an independent third party. He recommended, further, that if the Joint Committee were not in a position to undertake that task by 1st June, 2000, then the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) should be invited to carry out the examination, as soon as practicable. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, to the Labour Court, on the 4th April, 2000, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 23rd June, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is now necessary for the worker to carry out a wide range of duties not previously associated with her position (details supplied to the Court).
2. There are several comparisons which support the worker's claim. In Heuston Booking Office, 9 people were regraded to Clerical Officer Class 3. Those 9 Officers book trains and balance cash, duties performed by the claimant. However, they do not have to do lodgements, nor do they have to handle enquiries, whereas the claimant does.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is unacceptable in that it does not deal with the core issues, i.e., the worker's regrading and the reconstitution of the Grading committee. The worker's claim has been live for almost 4 years which is an unacceptably long time during which little or no action has been taken by the Company to resolve the matter. The Grading Committee should be re-constituted forthwith in order to enable employees to use it, the agreed mechanism, to pursue their re-grading aspirations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's application for regrading was declined on the basis of the core duties carried out by her (details supplied to the Court). Clerical Assistants Class 1 and Clerical Assistants Class 2 carry out comparable duties at the stations such as Claremorris, Limerick Booking Office, Cork Booking Office and Travel Centre.
2. In 1995, the then Joint Committee on Grading ruled that the worker should be graded at her current level, based on her duties, most of which she carries out at present.
3. The IPC carried out a survey, during 1999, on clerical duties and appropriate grades for clerical staff. Discussions on the IPC report are due to take place later in 2000.
DECISION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of this appeal. The Court is of the view that the best solution to the appellant's claim for regrading is as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and, furthermore, decides that the formal examination by the Irish Productivity Centre should commence with immediate effect. The Court would expect the process to be completed within a period of two months.
This is an appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and, therefore, the Court cannot deal with the Union's claim for the re-constitution of the Joint Committee on Regrading, as that claim is outside its remit.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd July, 2000______________________
MK/MKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.