Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17247

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/74
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17247
(CC01/3374)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
ROCHES STORES
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
SUBJECT:
1. Re-grading of Stockroom Supervisors.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Union's claim is for the re-grading of 4 Stockroom Supervisors in line with the grade of Department Manager. The Union believes that the work done by both sets of workers is comparable. The 4 workers have service ranging between 20 and 34 years. They are responsible for approximately 30 workers. The Company believes that the claim is cost-increasing and debarred under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).

The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation conference, the Union proposed that an industrial engineer should evaluate the jobs but the Company rejected the proposal. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of February, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of August, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Re-gradings do take place and are not debarred by the PPF.

2. The duties of the Stockroom Supervisors have increased considerably in the last number of years (details supplied to the Court). They are now in line with that of the Department Manager and should be upgraded.

3. There has been no review of the position. The Union was willing to have an independent third party compare the 2 posts but could not get agreement from the Company.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. There has been no appreciable change in the duties of the Stockroom Supervisors, other than normal on-going marginal changes.

2. There is no direct comparisons between the Supervisors and the Department Managers. The Union and the Supervisors have accepted this at local discussions.

3. The re-grading claim is, in reality, a cost-increasing claim and is debarred by the PPF.

4. There is no valid reason for a job-evaluation.


RECOMMENDATION:

In the absence of any tangible evidence of a significant change in the role of the Stockroom Supervisors, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
4th September, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow