FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim For Pay Increase In Respect Of Increase In Responsibilities
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of five of its members employed as Surveyors with the Company. The Union are seeking a re-grading of the workers concerned to the 1D(2) grade due to increased responsibilities. The introduction of new technology has changed the method of operation of Surveyors. It is the Union's position that the workers are now being asked to extend their role to include functions of the Draughtsmen, who are remunerated on a higher scale. The Company contends that the new technology is part of normal business improvements as provided for under the National Wage Agreements. An offer of an increase of €2,500 of a non-superannuated payment was made by the Company and rejected by the Union. A further offer of €2,500 of a non-superannuated payment plus another €1,500 non-superannuated payment on completion of up-skilling training was made by the Company.
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 17th November, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th February, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 It is unfair and unreasonable that the claim for regrading by the workers concerned should be dealt with by way of an offer of a non-superannuated allowance. The proposal to extend the technical responsibilities of the workers should be recompensed by an increase in the basic pay applying to the job.
2 When the job size and content has changed it is reasonable to expect that any improved recompense will apply to basic pay.
3 The Company's final offer does not adequately reflect the change in duties envisaged and that it discriminates against the Surveyors as a group in comparison with other comparable grades within the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The offer by the Company is fair and reasonable in respect of this claim.
2 The Company is not in a position to have the increase included for pension purposes. There is a significant deficit in the Staff Pensions Scheme.
3 The Company has recruited three new Surveyors in the past 12 months. These new Surveyors are using the technology as part of their everyday duties as per industry norms.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court does not recommend any improvement in the offer already made by the Company which should apply with effect from a current date, once accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
28th February, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.