FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. The transfer of clerical/ administrative workers to other grades without agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that the Company is in breach of a 1981 agreement which covers the grading structure for clerical and administrative staff. Specifically the dispute centres on the appointment of an Administrative Officer (A.O.) to a junior management position. The Union states that it should have been consulted in the matter as per Company/Union agreement. It believes that management is trying to change the agreed grading structures.
Management argues that there was a requirement for a new managerial position in the accounting area. It was a requirement that the successful candidate have the necessary financial skills. There was only one staff member with the necessary financial qualifications to fill the position. Management states that it was entitled to take this decision as per 2001 agreement.
As agreement was not possible the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 10th June, 2002 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th July, 2002 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th September, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Management's breach of company/union agreements is bad for industrial relations and undermines confidence in both agreements and the industrial relations process.
2 It is vital that agreements are upheld by both parties and that the obligations imposed by those agreements are honoured.
3 If the current agreed structure was not capable of catering for management staffing requirements, then management should have met with the union to discuss and agree any changes.
4. There is an agreed grading structure which provides for progression from Administrative Officer (A.O.) to Senior Administrative Officer (S.A.O.) but management ignored this.
5. The transfer of the Administrative Officer to a managerial post effected a reduction in that grade. Under the 2001 Agreement there is an express condition that such reduction in grade numbers will be the subject of discussion and agreement with the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is currently engaged in a comprehensive change and modernization programme which is designed to increase efficiencies and effect cost savings.
2. As part of this process the Company purchased and implemented an Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) system within which was an extensive General Ledger system. This allows the Company to accumulate and interpret financial data in order to make informed decisions relating to the financial performance of the Company.
3. The person appointed to the position was the only one who had the necessary financial qualifications.
4. The Company recently paid increases of 20% in addition to increases due under national agreements, to the Clerical/Administrative grades. The increase was for full co-operation and involvement in the Change Process currently being undertaken. The agreement also allowed for Clerical/ Administrative numbers to fall from the current level of 66 to 50.
5. The Company rejects the accusation that it breached procedures in this case and it asks the Court to find in its favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all aspects of this dispute, the Court is of the view that the action of management in promoting an employee from the Administrative Officer grade to a junior management grade was appropriate in the circumstances, particularly as there was no reduction in the number of Administrative Officer positions as agreed with the Union in the July 2001 agreement.
Concerns have been raised that management may progressively degrade the agreed structures. The Court notes that this is the second issue concerning the interpretation of the agreement that has been the subject of a dispute. Therefore, the Court recommends that in accordance with the spirit of the agreement there is a need for discussion with the Union before such appointments are made in the future.
The Court recommends the establishment of the Monitoring Committee as provided for in the agreement
"to oversee the implementation of the agreement".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th September, 2002______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.