Saturday, April 22, 2017
HR 101 - What to do when . . . There's a Discrepancy on the Job Description - Part 3
HR 101 - WHAT TO DO WHEN . . . . There’s a discrepancy
on the Job Description - Part 3
By Nikki Viljoen
– N Viljoen Consulting CC - March 2008.
Please note that this pertains to South African Labour Relations and
Best Practice requirements.
The question on the table is whether Mike
was ‘reasonable’ in requesting George to drive ‘in convoy” as apposed to George
driving his usual ‘Horse and Carriage’.
The CCMA Arbitrator said that in order to
answer the question, which was “whether an employer may instruct an employee to
perform tasks allegedly falling outside of his job description”, the answer
would depend on:
a.
what
the terms and/or conditions of George’s contract is;
b.
what
the nature of the task that George was asked to perform is;
c.
the
circumstances in which the instruction was given, and
d.
what
Mike’s operational requirements are.
SATAWU, being the union that George belongs
to, said that they had relied on the document (being the job description) which
listed the duties and tasks of a “Horse and Carriage” drive. Acting as a ‘convoy driver’ was not listed on
the job description, therefore in their opinion George did not have to perform
this task.
Mike stated that the Job Descriptions, with
their list of duties etc, were actually complied during an excise where he was
trying to grade a list of duties and the salaries that were most appropriate
for those duties. So each Job
description that was compiled was mostly used as a gage and to determine
appropriate wage rates rather than to constitute an extensive and comprehensive
Job Description.
To prove the point, SATAWU requested that Mike produce the minutes
of the relevant meeting, where the task team or committee, who were setting the
job grades, met. Apart from that, the
union did not call any witnesses or even disagree with the statement made by
Mike.
The arbitrator agreed with Mike’s statement
regarding the Job Descriptions, stating that the document (Job Description) did
not have ‘contractual force’.
When all the documents were submitted,
evidencing that the Job Descriptions were being used to rate wages, the
arbitrator discovered that the “Horse & Carriage” drivers had, in the past
been requested to perform ‘convoy’ related work and that they had in fact done
so.
The Arbitrator found that “employees do not
have a vested right to preserve their working obligations completely unchanged”
from the moment that they are appointed.
You see as Businesses grow and expand, so to do the requirements that
the Business needs for their employees to meet their obligations to their
clients.
Mike had also presented
his “Employee Handbook” which he had issued to all of his employees, George
included.
The Arbitrator referred
to this handbook, that stated “employees shall obey the legitimate instruction
of the supervision of any employee in authority over them”.
The union argued that
George had a right to lodge a grievance over what he perceived as a duty that
was not his.
Again the Arbitrator
referred to the handbook, which further stated that “should a grievance be felt
with regard to the instruction, representation may be made to supervision or
higher authority, but in the first instance the instruction shall be obeyed.”
Clearly Mike had all his
ducks in a row and clearly neither George nor his union had followed laid down
procedures.
Next week we will see how
the story ends.
Nikki is an Internal Auditor and Business
Administration Specialist who can be contacted on 083 702 8849 or nikki@viljoenconsulting.co.za
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment