FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH RAIL - AND - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Grading structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of five Production Managers for a review of their salary and grading structure.
The claim was initiated in 1998 when the Professional Engineers received a salary increase following a review by an independent expert.
The Union states that the Production Managers should receive increases in line with the Professional Engineers as they perform the same work.
In January, 1999, the Company reviewed the salaries of the workers concerned and offered increases which were rejected by the Union but were implemented by the Company in February, 1999. In December, 1999, at the request of the company, the same expert who compiled the report on Professional Engineers produced a report on the grading structure of the five Production Managers. The report validated the Company position. The Union rejected the report stating that the methodology used was not the same as was used in the 1998 report.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of February, 2001. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were no discussions regarding the methodology used in compiling the Irish Productivity Centre report in December, 1999. It was assumed it would be the same as the 1998 report.
2. At present Managers with engineering backgrounds are receiving a higher salary than their colleagues with technical backgrounds. The post never required an engineering qualification. The rate of pay should be determined by the post not the post holder's qualifications.
3. The workers concerned have been unfairly treated. They should now receive the same rate of pay as their colleagues with retrospection to 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The methodology used in compiling the report was accepted by the Managers. No objection was raised until after the report issued.
2. The report for Professional Engineers has no relevance to the Production Managers situation as it was carried out under terms of reference specific to Engineers in roles where an engineering qualification was necessary. There is no link between the two reports.
3. The workers concerned were treated fairly. A review was carried out by the company followed by the Irish Productivity Centre report. This report validated the salary increases applied by the company
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all aspects of this dispute. The Irish Productivity Centre produced a report on "Grading of Five Production Manager Positions" in December 1999. An independent investigator, highly experienced in this area and previously involved in similar assessments in the Company, carried out the investigation. The report took account of individual interviews conducted with each manager concerned.
The Court has no basis to doubt the professionalism of the independent report, or the resulting findings. The Company's own review appears to have satisfactorily taken account of the subsequent findings of the investigator's report, in adjusting salaries at that time.
Given that the claim was initiated by the Union in 1998, and that salary changes were made following the Company's review in February 1999, the Court recommends that retrospection of these increases should be paid, in the particular circumstances of this case, back to January 1998.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th February, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.