Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89286 Case Number: AD8952 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning the downgrading of a laboratory attendant.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the laboratory attendant accepts that
driving the Company jeep to and from Baltray is part of
his normal Grade 3 duties and that on his acceptance of
this he is restored to the Grade 3 and the Company
offers and he accepts an ex-gratia lump sum of #325."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was unacceptable to the
Union who appealed it to the Labour Court on 5th April, 1989,
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 27th June, 1989, in Dundalk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Between 1979, and August, 1986, the laboratory attendant
used only 2 methods of travelling to outside locations.
Either he was driven by a Company driver or he used his own
vehicle and received a mileage allowance. On one occasion he
did drive a Company vehicle as a favour to the Company.
2. During the discussions on the up-grading of the post there
was no discussion on driving Company vehicles. It was never
stated that there would be any change in the transport
arrangements for laboratory attendants. The laboratory
attendant's job specification, dated November, 1985, does not
refer to any driving duties.
3. In August, 1986, when he was told to use the Company
landrover to drive to Baltray, and indeed subsequently, the
laboratory attendant made it clear that he was not refusing to
carry out his duties at Baltray. The laboratory attendant
only requested that the driving arrangements remain as they
had been and then he would carry out his full duties as
normal.
4. The Company contravened the Company/Union Agreement by
arbitrarily down-grading the laboratory attendant. The
Company should have utilised the existing procedures. The
Union believes that the laboratory attendant should be
re-graded to Grade 3, be paid at Grade 3 rate retrospectively
to August, 1986 and that he should be conveyed to outside
locations by a driver from the Company's driver list.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is true that the driving of the landrover is not
written into the job specification. However, the Union is
aware that the Company's job specifications are not
comprehensive. They list only the important elements of the
job. It would be so absurd to send 2 men to Baltray each day
for half an hour, when only 1 is needed, that no-one could
reasonably have misunderstood the Company's intention.
2. The Company believes that loss of overtime in the
laboratory is actually the real nub of this problem. It has
been suggested that if something could be done about the
overtime then the driver issue might be resolved. The Company
is committed to sharing all overtime, as far as possible,
evenly amongst all employees.
3. The Company wants the laboratory attendant to take-up
again the extra duties and drive himself to Baltray in the
Company landrover. The Company is not prepared to provide him
with a driver. The worker has in fact driven himself in a
Company Landrover to Baltray on a few occassions.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is reasonable in the circumstances. The Court
accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal and
so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89286 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5289
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation concerning the downgrading of a laboratory
attendant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed laboratory attendant in
1979. His job was graded as Grade 2. In November, 1985,
following the addition of some extra duties and representations by
the Union, agreement was reached to up-grade the post to Grade 3.
Retrospection to October, 1984, was also granted. As part of his
new duties, the laboratory attendant had to visit the Company's
pumphouse at Baltray on a daily basis. On 22nd August, 1986, the
laboratory attendant was instructed to drive the Company landrover
to Baltray. When he requested a driver the Company refused saying
that he would have to drive the landrover himself on an ongoing
basis as it was part of his job. The laboratory attendant refused
to do this as it was not part of his job specification. The
Company, decided to down-grade the post to Grade 2 level as the
extra duties were not being performed.
3. The Union contended that up to August, 1986, anytime the
laboratory attendant had to attend an outside location he was
either driven by a driver off the Company's driver list or, if a
driver was unavailable, he was requested to utilise his own car
for which he was paid a mileage allowance. At no stage during the
re-grading negotiations was it stated that the laboratory
attendant would have to drive a Company vehicle. As agreement
could not be reached between the parties, the matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
Due to unavoidable circumstances a Rights Commissioner's hearing
did not take place until 13th February, 1989. On 17th February,
1989, the Rights Commissioner issued the following findings and
recommendation.
"Findings
Both records and memories may be uncertain concerning
events almost 3 years ago. I believe that a final
resolution of this dispute is desirable to both sides
now.
Recommendation
I recommend that the laboratory attendant accepts that
driving the Company jeep to and from Baltray is part of
his normal Grade 3 duties and that on his acceptance of
this he is restored to the Grade 3 and the Company
offers and he accepts an ex-gratia lump sum of #325."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was unacceptable to the
Union who appealed it to the Labour Court on 5th April, 1989,
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 27th June, 1989, in Dundalk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Between 1979, and August, 1986, the laboratory attendant
used only 2 methods of travelling to outside locations.
Either he was driven by a Company driver or he used his own
vehicle and received a mileage allowance. On one occasion he
did drive a Company vehicle as a favour to the Company.
2. During the discussions on the up-grading of the post there
was no discussion on driving Company vehicles. It was never
stated that there would be any change in the transport
arrangements for laboratory attendants. The laboratory
attendant's job specification, dated November, 1985, does not
refer to any driving duties.
3. In August, 1986, when he was told to use the Company
landrover to drive to Baltray, and indeed subsequently, the
laboratory attendant made it clear that he was not refusing to
carry out his duties at Baltray. The laboratory attendant
only requested that the driving arrangements remain as they
had been and then he would carry out his full duties as
normal.
4. The Company contravened the Company/Union Agreement by
arbitrarily down-grading the laboratory attendant. The
Company should have utilised the existing procedures. The
Union believes that the laboratory attendant should be
re-graded to Grade 3, be paid at Grade 3 rate retrospectively
to August, 1986 and that he should be conveyed to outside
locations by a driver from the Company's driver list.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is true that the driving of the landrover is not
written into the job specification. However, the Union is
aware that the Company's job specifications are not
comprehensive. They list only the important elements of the
job. It would be so absurd to send 2 men to Baltray each day
for half an hour, when only 1 is needed, that no-one could
reasonably have misunderstood the Company's intention.
2. The Company believes that loss of overtime in the
laboratory is actually the real nub of this problem. It has
been suggested that if something could be done about the
overtime then the driver issue might be resolved. The Company
is committed to sharing all overtime, as far as possible,
evenly amongst all employees.
3. The Company wants the laboratory attendant to take-up
again the extra duties and drive himself to Baltray in the
Company landrover. The Company is not prepared to provide him
with a driver. The worker has in fact driven himself in a
Company Landrover to Baltray on a few occassions.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is reasonable in the circumstances. The Court
accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal and
so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___21st___July,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman