FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Regrading to Class 2 Inspector.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of the Claimant that he should have been a Class 2 Inspector due to his workload and responsibility levels over the past number of years. Following the lodgment of this claim to the Labour Court for investigation, Management have put forward proposals to the Union promoting the Claimant and some of his colleagues from Class 1 to Class 2. Although the Union have accepted the proposals on behalf of a number of Inspectors in the category, the Claimant will not benefit due to his pending retirement (later this year). There is a requirement that an employee must have had three years at the promotional grade to achieve full benefit in pension provision.
As the Company refused to attend the Rights Commissioner’s Service the worker referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 31st August, 2006 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th April, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union has for a long period of time argued that the Claimant has been and continues to be wrongly graded.
2. The Company have now agreed to regrade Class 1 School Bus Inspectors who have been doing work comparable to the claimant to Class 2.
3. The Union argues that the Inspectors who will be reclassified will achieve
- (a) The benefits of a higher rate of pay for the duration of their employment and
(b) A vastly improved retirement pension based on the higher basic pay that accompanies a Class 2 inspector role.
5 The Union believes that representation was made to the Company in 2001 regarding allowing Supervisors who were about to retire to achieve their full superannuation payments without any averaging formula applying but understands that no progress has been made in this regard.
6. The Union is requesting the Company backdate the Claimants appointment to a Class 2 Inspector to at least three years prior to his retirement date in order for him to achieve full pension entitlements and some compensatory payment for his unfair treatment he has endured by being wrongly graded since 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1Management claims that there are two main factors concerned in this case:
- (a) Inspectors Change Programme 2000– In common with all other Inspectors, the claimant received a substantial basic pay increase under this Agreement. Because of his prior grading he was among those who benefited most. In this regard the Joint Central Review Committee whose decisions are binding on all parties decided that he has been correctly assimilated from the old six grade structure to the new rationalised three grade structure.
- (a) Inspectors Change Programme 2000– In common with all other Inspectors, the claimant received a substantial basic pay increase under this Agreement. Because of his prior grading he was among those who benefited most. In this regard the Joint Central Review Committee whose decisions are binding on all parties decided that he has been correctly assimilated from the old six grade structure to the new rationalised three grade structure.
- 2. The Claimant was correctly assimilated to his current grading based on the provisions contained in the Inspectors Change Programme. Subsequently his further claim that his workload and responsibilities warranted special consideration above similarly graded staff was not found to have any merit following a detailed and thorough examination by the agreed Joint Internal Body whose members best qualified to deal with such matters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, as well as the material submitted to the Court since the hearing, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th June, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.