FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOSTON SCIENTIFIC LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TERENCE J O' SULLIVAN SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Work of Quality Technician.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he should have been regarded as a Quality Technician as he has been doing all aspects of this work but has not been paid a Technician's salary. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 20th October, 2015 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 20th April, 2016.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been doing all aspects of the work of a Quality Technician since 2005 but has not been paid the salary of a Technician or received any of the benefits associated with this role.
2. The Company has refused to acknowledge the Worker as a Quality Technician despite the fact that he has the required relevant experience, has completed a DA in 2013 and has also completed a Quality Assurance course in CIT.
3.The Worker has been unfairly treated by the Company as no other Product Builders (the Worker's current grade) are required to carry out the same level of work, or has the same level of responsibilities as he.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant has applied for the role of Quality Technician on numerous occasions during the course of his employment but has not been successful in securing that position.
2. There is no way of securing the role of Quality Technician other than by a competitive recruitment process.
- 3. The claimant has been treated fairly and reasonably at all times during his employment. The claimant has asserted that he was promised the position of Quality Technician by his manager but the Company disputes this and say that the manager would have no authority to issue such a binding commitment on behalf of the employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court recommends that the parties agree a description of the job the Claimant actually performs. That description should undergo a blind assessment under the Hay scheme. Should that assessment establish that the work the Claimant performs is properly graded above the Project Builder 11 level the additional duties he performs should be treated and remunerated as a DA assignment until such time as he secures promotion, through open competition, in the normal way.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th May, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.