Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86770 Case Number: LCR10824 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRINITY HOUSE - and - LGPSU |
Claim for a joint job assessment to determine the salary scale of a staff officer.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the Union claim that a joint job
evaluation be carried out, be agreed to by management and that any
increase granted to the Staff Officer as a result of such
evaluation be paid effective from 1st May, 1986.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86770 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10824
CC86727 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10824
PARTIES: TRINITY HOUSE
(REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION
AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE)
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for a joint job assessment to determine the salary
scale of a staff officer.
Background:
2. Trinity House, Lusk, Co. Dublin is a certified reformatory
school for boys and was opened in 1983. It provides accommodation
for thirty boys under 16 years of age and employs seventy
workers. The school is managed by a board appointed by the
Minister for Education.
3. The worker concerned is employed by the school as a staff
officer in its finance/personnel section. He is responsible for
the general administration in of the school and has a number of
staff under his control. The rate of pay applying to the staff
officer post in the school is the same as that which applies to
the staff officer grade in the civil service, the current rate of
which is as follows:-
#10,744 X (7) - #12,427.
The worker concerned is on the maximum point of his scale. The
Union contends that the job of staff officer in the school is
incorrectly graded and compares more favourably with that of grade
V1 clerical/administrative employed by Local Authorities and
Health Boards to which the following salary scale applies:-
#13,513 X (4) - #15,234.
Accordingly the Union served a claim on the Department of
Education for the appropriate regrading of the worker. The
Department rejected the claim.
4. In the course of negotiations at local level on the regrading
of the worker the Union proposed that a Joint job assessment be
carried out to determine the correct grading of the job. This was
unacceptable to the Department and the matter was referred on 21st
April, 1986, to the Conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 18th August, 1986 (the
earliest date suitable to the Department) at which the Department
stated that it would consider upgrading the post to the level of
executive officer in the civil service, as was proposed for staff
officers in the civil service under the terms of the recent white
paper "Serving the Country Better"; given the relationship
between the staff officer post in the school and the civil service
staff officer grade. This was rejected by the Union who
reiterated its proposal for a joint job assessment on the matter.
The conciliation conference was adjourned to enable the Department
to consider this proposal. At a resumed conference on 6th
October, 1986 the Department informed the Union that its proposal
was unacceptable on the basis that the Department of the Public
Service had recently carried out a staffing survey at the school
and in its report had found that the post in question was
appropriately graded. As no agreement on the issue could be
reached the claim for to have a joint job assessment on the post
carried out was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 20th
October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The job of staff officer in the school compares
favourably with that of grade V1 clerical/
administrative employed by Local Authorities and
Health Boards, in accordance with the evaluation
system used by the Department. In this respect, the
scope and responsibility of the work and the
accountability involved are equal (details supplied
to the Court).
(ii) The Union is convinced that a joint job evaluation
will prove its case and is therefore very concerned
at the refusal of the Department to engage in such an
evaluation as this is the first time in the Union's
history with all employers, that such a request has
been denied. The Union has up until now, because of
the joint nature of the evaluation, been prepared to
accept its outcome and would have done so in this
case but finds itself in the impossible situation of
that request being denied on the basis of a survey
carried out by the Department of the Public Service
which has never been involved in the evaluation
system used by both the Department and the Union.
(iii) The Union's claim, that a joint job assessment be
carried out to determine the salary scale of the
worker based on the agreed criteria for the
determination of the grading of posts, is fair and
reasonable and should be conceded.
Officials Side's arguments:
6. (a) In comparison with grade V1 posts elsewhere in the
educational sector (details supplied to the Court) the
level of responsibilities undertaken by the staff
officer in the school does not justify a grade V1
status (details supplied to the Court).
(b) An evaluation has been carried out on the staff officer
post by a Department of the Public Service management
service team and it considered the staff officer post
to be appropriately graded.
(c) The status of the staff officer concerned will be
up-graded to that of executive officer, as proposed for
the staff officer grade in the civil service, on
finalisation of the necessary details in the civil
service. The executive officer grading approximates to
that of grade V officer in the local authorities and
health boards.
(d) The increases sought by the Union in this claim range
from 26% on the minimum to 23% on the maximum points of
the scale. Increases of this nature could not be
countenanced.
(e) In all the circumstances the Union's claim must be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the Union claim that a joint job
evaluation be carried out, be agreed to by management and that any
increase granted to the Staff Officer as a result of such
evaluation be paid effective from 1st May, 1986.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.