AD9954

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/99/378 APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD9954 (IR294/99/GF) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHN PLAYER & SONS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR294/99.




BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns four electricians and has arisen on foot of their refusal to take instructions from the "Accuray Technician" in the absence of the established Electrical Foremen. The Company contends that it has the right to assign personnel to other areas for temporary relief purposes while the Union claims that the change in the line of command is unacceptable and that the Accuray Technician is not the appropriate person in the circumstances.

The dispute was the subject of an investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found that the most appropriate measure would be to "create a leading hand's position from amongst the electricians, all of whom are multi-skilled and largely working on their own initiative."

The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, on the 12th of July, 1999, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 3rd of September, 1999.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is wholly inappropriate in the context of the issue in dispute and in the context of practices in other areas of the employment.



2. The stance adopted by the Union is at variance with its own principles regarding the circumstances or conditions in which supervision will be accepted by its members.

3. The implementation of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation would create another unnecessary layer in the line of command.

4. The Accuray Technician who is a member of the engineering staff and part of the Foreman Group, performs his duties in the production area. His role includes supervisory responsibilities in the absence of the established foremen.

5. The basic question which has to be addressed is whether or not the Company has a right to deploy its available resources, in the electrical area, to maximum advantage and effect.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The present chain of command is such that four electricians report to and are supervised by an Electrical Foreman who reports to the Factory Manager who in turn reports to the Production Director. There is a continuing need for a person with an electrical background to take charge in the absence of the Electrical Foreman. The use of the Accuray Technician is inappropriate as he has his own specific duties to perform. In any event, his departure from the Company is imminent.

2. The Company has previously made attempts to put in place similar arrangements but its proposals were rejected by the electricians. In 1988 the Company sought to negotiate a deal whereby fitters would take instructions from the engineering services manager (electrical background). Following a Rights Commissioner's investigation and a Labour Court Appeal hearing, it was deemed appropriate that fitters take instructions only from the assistant supervisor (mechanical background).

3. The Rights Commissioner recommended the appointment of a leading hand position which is acceptable to the Union and its members. As there are no changed circumstances, the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.




DECISION:

The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, does not support the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in the case.

The Court is satisfied that the Accuray Technician has the necessary qualifications to act in the absence of the electrical foreman.

However, the Court notes the arguments made by the Union that the Accuray Technician has his own duties to perform and that there is an agreed structure in position.


The Court's decision is that the electricians should accept the Accuray Technician as a stand-in for the electrical foreman but that the Company examine his workload and enter into discussions with the Union on formalising this position.

The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal and rejects the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
30th September, 1999______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.