INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX, SOLICITORS)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY TAYLOR AND BUCHALTER, SOLICITORS)
Chairman: Ms Owens
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
2. The worker commenced employment with City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee (CDVEC) in June, 1978 as a deputy labourer/cleaner until assigned class aide duties in the Reprographics Unit at Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin from June, 1979. The College has been operating independently from the CDVEC since the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992 came into operation.
The worker claims that in 1982 he obtained his final certificate of City and Guilds of London Institute and was accepted into the Institute of Reprographics Technology (UK). The worker states that since 1982 he has been carrying out the work of Technician in the Reprographics Department of the College. He has been recommended for upgrading to Technician status on a personal basis on numerous occasions but without success. Following the retirement of the Technician in 1995 the worker continued to perform all the duties associated with that post.
Management claims that the worker's duties were that of assisting the Reprographics Technician. It rejects the worker's claim that he be upgraded to Technician status. Management states that the filling of any vacancies must come within the terms of the Department of Education Circular Letter 74/82 and be filled, if permissible, by public advertisement.
Furthermore, when the Technician retired in 1995, it was the view of Management that the skills which had been required in the past to provide a reprographics service, had been overtaken by technology. The offset printing machines and the photographic reproductive machines were replaced by more modern and elaborate photocopiers. As a result it was
decided not to fill the Technician post.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 11th of December, 1997.
3. 1. The worker should be upgraded to Technician. He has the required qualifications and has performed all the duties associated with that grade.
2. The worker has been recommended for upgrading on many occasions. He is currently performing the duties of the Technician who retired in 1995.
3. The worker has applied for upgrading since 1982, but his applications have been ignored or refused.
4. The work load has increased substantially in recent years in the Reprographics Department. The worker has continued to manage the Department on his own.
4. 1. The College Council, which is only an advisory body, recommended that the worker be upgraded to Technician on a personal basis. However, all proposals for upgrading must be approved by the CDVEC. The CDVEC did not approve this upgrading.
2. If this claim was conceded the Reprographic Unit in Kevin Street Centre would be the only unit in the Institute staffed by a Technician rather than a Class Aide.
3. It was decided in 1995, when the permanent Technician retired, not to fill this vacancy. The skills which had been required in the past to provide a reprographics service had been overtaken by new technology.
4. It is not the policy of the Institute to upgrade people on a personal basis. All posts that become available/vacant are filled on the basis of an open competition.
Having considered the submissions from the parties and whilst appreciating the genuinely held expectation of the claimant the Court nevertheless has concluded that it would not be justified in recommending concession of the claim as it would be in breach of the established practice of advertising posts.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.