FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Upgrade to Chargehand Fitter
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Office of Public Works (OPW) and SIPTU in relation to a fitter employed by the OPW in Ballina. The Union's position is that the worker should be upgraded to the position of chargehand fitter on the basis of having carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the higher grade. Management's position is that due to constraints imposed upon it by the current moratorium on recruitment and promotion, it cannot promote the worker to the higher grade. It contends that there are many workers currently carrying out the work of higher grades who are not being recognised for the additional duties undertaken and who cannot be promoted/upgraded.
On the 20th August, 2010 the worker referred the issue 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 24th February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker has been constantly carrying out duties at the level of a chargehand. On the basis of the additional levels of responsibility taken on by the worker and the geographical spread of the work involved, the Union's claim for upgrading is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
2 Management contend that the Ballina area receives supports from the Headford region when necessary and that the grading structures in Headford covers Ballina also. This is not accepted by the Union. Both area are seperate with different areas of responsibilities. There are two chargehand grades in the Headford region and there should also be a seperate chargehand grade in Ballina.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management accept that the worker has carried out higher duties in the past but it is unable to award upgrades due to the current moratorium on public sector recruitment and promotion.
2 If management were in a position to fill a chargehand post in Ballina, it would not automatically go to the worker in this case. All promotions must be subject to open competition.
3 The claimant is one of three workers assigned to the Mechanical maintenance section. Concession of this claim, even if it were possible, would mean two of the three craftsmen in the section would be in supervisory positions. This would be totally inappropriate and unecessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court can see no justifiable basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th March 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.