FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INGERSOLL RAND INTERNATIONAL LTD T/A THERMO KING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-128375-ir-12.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for an upgrade to reflect the requirement for him to 'float' between jobs. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 21st May, 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "It seems to me that this is an issue that has collective import and that it would therefore, be improper for me to recommend as petitioned by the [Worker]."
On the 13th June, 2013 the Employee 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 26th March, 2014.
3. 1. The Worker operated as a floater in the paint department.
2.The Worker should be paid the correct rate for this job.
3.The Worker should be paid retrospectively from when he began the role.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Worker claims he was a 'floater' on an ongoing basis.
2.No such position exists in any department.
3.There is, accordingly, no merit to the Worker's claim.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation in which he sought an upgrade from Grade VI to Grade VII to reflect the requirement for him to “float” between jobs. The Rights Commissioner found against his claim, however, he recommended that the question of the viability of the necessity for a “Floater” within the Paint Department should be discussed between the parties.
The Union submitted that the Claimant carried out the role of Floater within the Paint Department during the period from September 2010 until December 2013 at which time the Paint Department ceased to exist. Accordingly the Union sought an upgrade for the Claimant to reflect his position.
The Employer rejected the claim, stating that the Claimant did not carry out the role as Floater, it informed the Court that official Designated Floater roles were in existence within the Assembly Production Line, however, no such role existed in the Paint Department. The Claimant was required, as the last person in that Department, to cover for absent employees when necessary, however, this was not a Designated Floater role.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court notes that the Designated Floaters are required to carry out functions which have been evaluated at a higher grade as the jobs required higher skills. Within the Assembly Production Line operatives are graded as Grade V employees, however, the Designated Floater are designated as Grade VI as they required to carry out work evaluated at Grade VI.
The Court notes that when the Claimant was required to cover for operatives within the Paint Department, he was doing work appropriate to Grade VI. Therefore, the Court does not see merit in the claim for an upgrade in his rate of pay for the period when he was covering for absent employees within the Paint Department and accordingly rejects the appeal of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th April, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.