FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the upgrading of the worker from chargehand (craft) to the position of co-ordinator. In March, 1999, the worker was promoted to chargehand in the Locksmith Section at the College. In September of that year he made an application to the Building Office that his job title be looked at due to the size of area he had to cover, and that a promotion be considered. A number of meetings took place but no progress was made. In March, 2001, the worker put his application in writing, setting out details of his job (details supplied to the Court). The College's case is that the worker's duties are consistent with other chargehands and that no promotion is warranted.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of April, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of August, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's position is unique. His responsibilities extend beyond what a craft chargehand is expected to cover, including the full responsibilities of his staff.
2. If the worker was employed in the outside security business of Locksmith he would be paid between €700 - €750 per week. At present he is paid €551 plus 1 hour per day travelling time.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All duties listed by the Union are within the normal duties required of a craft chargehand.
2. The role and responsibilities of a co-ordinator are quite different to that of a chargehand, and the Union has failed to demonstrate how the worker deserves to be upgraded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this case.
The Court believes that the claim has some merit in that certain duties attaching to the claimant's post might justify a higher grading. However, the Court does not accept that a regrading to co-ordinator is either warranted or justified.
The Court recommends that the College, in conjunction with all relevant unions, should review the current supervisory structure in the craft area with a view to addressing such anomalies as may arise within the present arrangements.
The claimant's position should then be reviewed when that process is completed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th September, 2003______________________
MB/CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.