FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for additional duties performed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns an Inspector (grade 2) who works in the Company's Dundalk office. The Union claims that he regularly performs the duties of a Chief Inspector (grade 3) and is seeking that he be compensated accordingly.
In early 2000, the worker was asked to produce a roster which would result in a 5-day week for drivers. (The Union supplied details of the work involved). The worker told the Area Manager that the work involved was being carried out in other areas by people with a higher grade.
In December 2000, an agreed Change Programme for Inspectors was introduced. A Joint Central Review Committee (the Committee) was set up to oversee its implementation and, in March, 2001, the Unions submitted regrading claims on behalf of 16 Inspectors, including the worker concerned. Part of the Programme included reducing the old structure of six grade - A to F - to three grades - class 1, 2 and 3. Management concluded that all 16 inspectors had been correctly assimilated to the new gradings.
Following a meeting in July, 2003, the Chairman of the Committee advised both parties to meet for the purpose of exploring other possible solutions in regard to the worker. (The Union understood this to mean compensation for the extra duties being performed). However, the parties failed to reach agreement and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. As the parties could not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of July, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of November, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker regularly carries out duties appropriate to the grade of Chief Inspector and this is acknowledged by the Company.
2.The Union is not seeking that the worker be regraded but believes that he should be compensated for the additional duties he performs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker, along with all Inspectors, benefited substantially from the productivity pay increases contained in the Change Programme implemented in June, 2002.
2. The worker's claim for regrading was properly dealt with by the Committee.
3. The worker can only be paid at the higher grade when he undertakes thefullresponsibilities of that grade.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having heard the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court has established to its satisfaction that the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the regrading of Inspectors, at its meeting in July 2003, advised the parties to meet for the purpose of compensating the claimant for any additional functions performed by him.
The Court recommends that the parties now activate that advice by meeting, establishing the level of extra responsibility carried out regularly by the claimant and agreeing a level of compensation to be paid to the claimant for performing such extra duties. This should apply only in the unique circumstances of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
16th November, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.