LCR22918

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

The case was referred to the Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30 January 2024.  Both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a joint referral under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both parties have undertaken in advance to accept the Recommendation of the Court.

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The dispute before the Court manifests itself as a dispute as to whether the worker is a Manufacturing Team Leader. In the view of the Court the dispute is, in fact, concerned not with the job title but with the range of duties which the worker is required by the employer to carry out. In particular, the worker appears to have concerns in relation to the proposition that he would provide a level of supervision or oversight to general operative level staff and particularly so to new staff.

There is no doubt that the title of Manufacturing Team Leader is the title given to the role occupied by the worker since 2012. He signed a contract of employment that year wherein the role was so described. It is clear also that he has seen that title in use in relation to himself over the years including on his training logs. In fact, he himself acknowledged in January 2023 that his contracted job title is Manufacturing Team Leader.

The Court is concerned at the procedure utilised by the parties in referring this trade dispute to the Court. It appears that there is a grievance procedure in the employment and a disciplinary procedure. Both of those procedures appear to have been engaged in relation to this worker.

 Having regard to all of the circumstances the Court recommends that:

• Both parties accept that the job role of the worker is that of Manufacturing Team Leader as identified on his contract of employment. The Court notes that the worker is, according to the employer, paid a significantly higher rate of pay than general operative level staff in the employment.
• Both parties accept that it is for the employer to designate the content of job roles in the employment and accept that change in job content is a fact of life in most workplaces as time passes.
• Both parties acknowledge that the worker has concerns with elements of the role which he is being asked to discharge and particularly so with regard to supervisory responsibilities in relation to general operative staff. Having acknowledged the existence of those concerns, the employer should arrange to engage constructively with the worker to ensure that he has all necessary training and support to deal with all elements of the job which the employer is requiring him to carry out.

In making the above recommendation, the Court encourages the employer to review and update the text of the internal grievance and disciplinary procedures so as to ensure that the procedures laid out therein are appropriate and effective.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
7 February 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.