FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNR�D EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL WORKERS UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Re-grading
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions for the re-grading of three Parcels Depot Persons, herein referred to as PDP, to the grade of Traffic Coordinator in the Galway depot. The Unions are claiming that the duties and responsibilities of the workers concerned have greatly increased since the withdrawal of the Clerical Officer grade from the Galway location, in that the duties formally performed by the CO are being performed by the Parcels Depot Persons without reward and the storage lockers were withdrawn and the business transferred to PDP, again, without reward.. It was agreed between the Company and the Unions that an independent examination would be carried out in order to determine the re-grading of the PDP at a number of locations. The report was issued in November 2001, and the main findings of the report was that the basis does not exist at present for possession of claim for PDP at the stations examined for re-grading to that of Traffic Coordinator. The report also stated that the PDP needed to be standardised across various locations and in the event of greater responsibility being allocated, then the position should be re-examined. The Unions rejected the findings of the independent report.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th December, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th April, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basis for the Unions rejection of the report was that it was agreed that the independent survey would be carried out on the PDP claim for Traffic Coordinator rate, and the understanding was that it would be based on a list of extra responsibilities which had been submitted to the Company and any other duties which the survey would show up. Instead the submitted lists were put in the report as common duties and responsibilities of the PDP. No acknowledgement of the origin of the claim was assessed or included in the findings.
2. The claim was always for the rate of pay based on the extra responsibilities and accountability. In at least two other situations promotions to Traffic Coordinator were given without job surveys being carried out.
3. Based on the terms of reference and the method of use, the claim submitted to the Company has not been addressed properly because all elements were not included and the job comparison was done without verifying the extra responsibilities submitted in the claim. Based on the duties in each location, a grading system should exist which would acknowledge the responsibilities and accountabilities which form the basis of the original claim submitted by Galway station.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is strongly of the opinion that the substantive claim lacks merit and the examination and report has supported this.
2. The duties performed by the PDP are consistent with the current grading structure and wholly inconsistent with the grade of Traffic Coordinator. This grading structure was established as recently as October 2001 by agreement with the Unions and with the assistance of the Court. Fundamental to that agreement was a significant increase in pay rates for Rail Operatives grade colleagues.
3. The Company are seeking that the findings of the independent report be upheld, the main finding being " that a basis does not exist at present for concession of the claim by Parcel Depot Persons".
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the current grading structure withint the Company, the Court can see no basis upon which it can disagree with the conclusion reached by the independent investigator appointed by the parties to examine this claim.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd April 2005______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.