FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NOVARTIS RINGASKIDDY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for compensation for increased responsibility and duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a claim for compensation for additional duties and responsibilities. The Union's case is that the worker has been carrying out a lead role in the Stores area of the business since 2009 and should be compensated accordingly. Management's position is that the worker was offered an opportunity to become a salaried member of staff and to receive an appropriate pay increase. It contends that the worker refused the offer but did not explain the reasons for his refusal or raise any grievance internally.
On the 31st March 2010, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 1st June, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 There was an operational review of the stores area which resulted in a reduction in staff numbers in that area. Following the review the Claimant assumed a greater and more responsible role within that area and should be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management accept that the worker had assumed a more responsible role within the Stores area. He was subsequently offered a salaried position and pay rise to reflect the change which he did not accept. In those circumstances management had to put alternative measures in place to ensure the continued efficient operation of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a worker employed as an Engineering Stores Operator for an increase in pay as a result of his enhanced role in the Stores since March 2009. The Union submitted that as a result of the changes the Claimant was required to operate on his own and was consequently under more pressure at work.
The Company disputed that the role of the Engineering Stores Operator had been substantially enhanced to warrant an increase in pay. It submitted that in 2009 the Claimant was provided with an opportunity to take on increased responsibilities, transfer to a salaried position and receive an increase in pay of 4.5%, however, he declined.
As a result the Company put in place alternative solutions including technical and operational changes in order to manage the increased workload in other ways. These solutions included appointing a Manager in a full time role overseeing the Stores area. Management outlined to the Court the types of changes already made and details of the further changes it is in the process of implementing, including bar coding of products. The Company stated that it is now satisfied that the system is working well.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is not satisfied that the claim for an increase in pay due to enhanced responsibilities has been substantiated and accordingly does not find merit in the Union’s claim. However, the Court is of the view that the claimant and his representative should be fully consulted in relation to all ongoing changes within the Stores area.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th June 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.