FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Re-grading of Stockroom Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the re-grading of 4 Stockroom Supervisors in line with the grade of Department Manager. The Union believes that the work done by both sets of workers is comparable. The 4 workers have service ranging between 20 and 34 years. They are responsible for approximately 30 workers. The Company believes that the claim is cost-increasing and debarred under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation conference, the Union proposed that an industrial engineer should evaluate the jobs but the Company rejected the proposal. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of February, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of August, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Re-gradings do take place and are not debarred by the PPF.
2. The duties of the Stockroom Supervisors have increased considerably in the last number of years (details supplied to the Court). They are now in line with that of the Department Manager and should be upgraded.
3. There has been no review of the position. The Union was willing to have an independent third party compare the 2 posts but could not get agreement from the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been no appreciable change in the duties of the Stockroom Supervisors, other than normal on-going marginal changes.
2. There is no direct comparisons between the Supervisors and the Department Managers. The Union and the Supervisors have accepted this at local discussions.
3. The re-grading claim is, in reality, a cost-increasing claim and is debarred by the PPF.
4. There is no valid reason for a job-evaluation.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the absence of any tangible evidence of a significant change in the role of the Stockroom Supervisors, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th September, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.