INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
2. The worker concerned is employed as an electrician by Teagasc at Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for upgrading to a Foreman position. The Authority rejects the claim.
Local discussions could not resolve the issue. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 23rd of February, 2000 and on the 30th of November, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of July, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of October, 2001, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
Following the conciliation conferences the Authority offered to promote the worker concerned to Chargehand Electrician retrospective to the 1st of July, 1997. The Union rejected the offer.
3. 1. The worker concerned carries out duties which far exceed his duties as an electrician and they include carrying out Foreman duties when the Foreman is on leave.
2. There is no electrical engineer employed at Johnstown Castle, therefore, the worker concerned has responsibility for all electrical maintenance work.
3. The worker concerned has given a lifetime to the Authority and should now be promoted to a Foreman position retrospective to the 1st of July, 1997.
4. 1. The worker concerned works as a craftsman electrician under direction and is not responsible for supervising other craftsmen.
2. The Authority treated the worker concerned as fairly as possible in making its offer. As his duties are those of a craftsman, an upgrading to a Foreman position cannot be justified.
3. The Union's claim cannot be conceded as it would create difficulties elsewhere in the organisation.
The Court, having considered all the arguments on both sides, is of the view that the proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer on 3rd April, 2000, and the subsequent letter of 7th April, 2000, form the basis of a fair and reasonable way of addressing this claim. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Company's offer of 28th February, 2001, amended to indicate that the claimant should retire in April, 2002, should be accepted in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd October, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.