FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TARA MINES HOLDINGS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-050805-Ir-07/Jt
BACKGROUND:
2. It is the Union's claim that the Worker by co-operating with the Company and re-deploying to his current position, has suffered financially. The Company in creating a four tier pay structure for the job has left the Claimant at the bottom of the pay structure. If the Claimant had not agreed to the move he would have remained in his previous post at a higher rate of pay. The Company argue that there is a three tier grade structure and that the claimant is on the lowest tier. The claim for pay parity has no justification and could lead to knock-on claims an industrial action.
The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 14th August, 2007 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I believe that the current pay structures have evolved over a number of years based on the requirements, needs and changes required by the Respondent to run the business. I therefore accept that there are promotional structures to advance from Indirect mining to Direct mining, the system that operates where people can be promoted and increase their pay. I therefore recommend that the Claimant use the promotional system to advance his career with the Respondent.
There I do not find the claim well founded and therefore it falls"
On the 2nd October, 2007 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The three grades carrying out the transportation responsibilities obtained their position by transfer not open competition. The Claimant is carrying out similar duties and responsibilities as the Intermediate Miner but receiving a lesser rate of pay.
2 An evaluation process was carried out on the three positions. The Claimant scored marginally higher than his colleague who is paid at a higher rate. This supports the Union's claim that the Claimant is on an incorrect rate of pay. If the Claimants position was advertised with the current rate of pay no applications would be received in light of the evaluation.
3 If the Claimant had not assisted the Company by re-deploying to the current position, he would have been retained in his old position on the higher rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 There are promotional structures in place for workers to advance from Indirect mining to Direct mining. Any advancement must be made through the promotional structure. The Claimant has not been trained in any of the Intermediate or Direst mining functions and consequently does not qualify for Intermediate or Direct miner rates.
2 To make concession on this claim would have far reaching knock-on effects across the mine. There are many different type of Indirect mining roles. These roles would no doubt all be subject to similar claims.
3 There have been advertisements for promotion within the Company. The Claimant is entitled to apply for any promotional position available and if successful undergo the training necessary.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the Claimant should receive the Backfill rate with effect from the 22nd January 2007. The Court so decides and overturns the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st January, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.