FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CROWN EQUIPMENT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AMICUS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Regrading claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the Worker's ongoing attempts to be re-graded in accordance with the Company/Union Agreement. The Claimant sought to have his job re-graded from grade 5 to grade 6. His claim is based on the fact that he has completed a recognised apprenticeships and was engaged in specialist work within the stock picker area. The Union claims that these attempts have failed as the evaluation process was left uncompleted in this case. The Union is claiming that the Company has acted unfairly in its treatment of the Worker's claim for an upgrade and in doing so has denied him access to the grievance procedure in the Company/Union Agreement. The Worker's redundancy payment was based on grade 5 rather than grade 6 and results in a shortfall of approximately €50 per week. The Union is requesting the Court to recommend the concession of the Worker's upgrade to Grade 6 retrospective to the date of his claim for regrading in October, 2004 and that the Company applies this upgrade to his redundancy calculation.
The worker referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 17th November, 2006 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.The Court was informed by letter from the Company's representatives that the Company had ceased trading in December 2006 and they would not be attending the Labour Court hearing and no representations were made by them or the Company. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Worker is a time-served welder and has always argued that this should have been taken into account when the evaluation took place. His work was at the higher end of the welding process in the plant and effectively he had responsibility for special jobs. His work involved the full range of skills that he developed as a time-served welder.
2. The Worker has been seeking to resolve this dispute since 2006 when it emerged that the Company would not complete the evaluation process. He has been denied the opportunity to have his claim heard by a Right Commissioner as laid down in the Company/Union Agreement. This refusal of access to in-house procedures is unique to the Worker as numerous similar claims were resolved through the agreed procedures prior to the cessation of production.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer was not present at the hearing. Without dealing with the merits or otherwise of the case, the Company’s representative informed the Court by written correspondence that the Company had ceased trading in Ireland.
The claim concerns one Worker whose claim for regrading had not been finalised when the Company ceased trading. He sought retrospection and an adjustment in his severance package to reflect the upgrade sought.
The Union stated to the Court that the Worker’s ongoing attempts to be re-graded failed as the evaluation process was not completed when the Company ceased trading and he was denied access to the grievance procedure as per the Company/Union Agreement.
Having considered the oral and written submission made on behalf of the Worker, the Court is not in a position to determine the upgrading claim, however, for the failure to abide by its own procedures the Court recommends that the Company should increase the Worker’s severance payment by the sum of €5000. The Court recommends that this should be accepted by the Worker in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th June, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.