Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86860 Case Number: LCR10966 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD IASCAIGH MHARA - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of two investment advisors for an upgrading from their present grade 1 status, to executive grade.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that this claim should be dealt with
in the same manner as the claim which was the subject of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 10,400. Accordingly the Court recommends
that the parties should implement the terms of that recommendation
as a matter of urgency, and that the posts which are the subject
of this claim should be evaluated as a priority within any agreed
evaluation scheme.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86860 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10966
CC86838 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10966
PARTIES: BORD IASCAIGH MHARA
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two investment advisors for an upgrading
from their present grade 1 status, to executive grade.
Background:
2. The posts which the two investment advisors currently fill
were new positions created early in 1980 as a result of expansion
of activities at the time, including the operation of the
Mariculture Grant Scheme. The posts were advertised internally at
grade I level. The Bord's grading structure is; general assistant
Grade III, Grade II, Grade I, Resource Development Officer
(R.D.O.) Senior R.D.O. Executive Grade.
The job specification for investment advisors includes the
preparation and formulation of investment proposals in the fish
processing, handling, mariculture and ancillary fishery areas in
conjunction with private investors, companies and co-operatives.
The proposals are submitted with the appropriate recommendations
to one of a number of institutions for financial aid under various
schemes. The investment advisors must also advise a number of
government agencies, existing and potential investors, provide a
market advice and research service for exporters and supervise
grant payments in respect of investment projects. On 5th
September, 1985, the Union lodged a claim for upgrading of the two
investment advisors, arguing that on the basis of duties and
experience, educational qualifications and internal and external
comparisons the posts are incorrectly graded at present. The Bord
believes the present grading reflects the duties and
responsibilities of the investment advisor position, and it is not
possible to isolate the position as having special characteristics
which would justify it being treated differently to other
positions in the grade 1 category. The Bord felt that the correct
way to proceed in this case was as recommended in Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,400 - the continuation of local discussions
on a job evaluation scheme. However, the Union position was that,
no scheme is yet in existence, and legitimate claims in the
meantime have to be addressed. The parties could not reach
agreement at a local level and on 7th May, 1986, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 21st October, 1986. Failing
to reach agreement the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
6th November, 1986, for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 13th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Due to the specialist nature of the work carried out by
the investment advisors internal comparisons are
limited. The Union believes that the investment
advisors should be at a similar grade to FEOGA Grants
Administrator who are at executive level. Their duties
are broadly similar in respect of their qualitative and
specialist nature. However, it should be noted that
the duties performed by the investment advisors are
more varied and the qualifications and experience
sought for the position exceeds that of the FEOGA
Grants Administrator.
(b) In other public sector organisations the project staff
are remunerated on salary scales higher than those of
the clerical staff. The remuneration in Bord Iascaigh
Mhara is related to a clerical grade structure.
(c) The positions of investment advisors were internally
advertised in 1980, and the Bord sought candidates with
qualifications in accountancy or business studies and
experience in business management. The level of
experience and qualifications sought exceeds that which
has been required for other posts at the same grade.
Therefore this claim will have no repercussive affects
for other staff employed by the Bord.
(d) Following the formulation of a new division in 1982,
namely the Export Development Division, the duties and
responsibilities of the investment advisors have been
widened to include, to a much greater extent, market
development services to industry. These additional
responsibilities have not been reflected in their
grading.
(e) Negotiations have been held with the Bord since 1981,
on reviewing the salary grading structure, however no
review has taken place to-date. This fact, together
with the failure of the Bord to introduce a job
evaluation scheme as recommended in Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,400, has led to Union frustration
and left no alternative but to appeal to the Court.
Bord's arguments:
4. (i) The two investment advisor posts were advertised to
the staff at grade 1 level. The Bord is of the
opinion that the present grading properly reflects
the duties and responsibilities of the position.
There has been no material change in the level of
responsibility of these officers' since their
appointment. Any changes in duties that has occurred
are consistent with the flexibility required of all
officers on appointment to grade 1 level.
(ii) The internal and external relationships of the posts
have not changed since the posts were created.
Neither officer has any staff directly reporting to
them nor have they responsibility for any staff
within the division.
(iii) The Bord, being a non-commercial semi-State
organisation fully funded by the Exchequer, is
obliged to adhere to Government directives regarding
staff numbers in the different grades, the filling of
vacancies and the creation of new posts. The Bord is
further and ultimately constrained by the financial
allocation for pay purposes made available to it.
(iv) The fact that officers of advisor rank in some State
agencies may be paid more than the grade 1 scale in
the Bord cannot be adduced in support of the present
claim as salaries in general in the Bord are not
comparable with those in State agencies such as the
I.D.A. The grading structure in the Bord reflects
the organisation's position in the "Devlin" ranking
of semi-State organisations for pay purposes.
(v) Recourse to the Labour Court for upgrading in the
particular cases in question runs counter to the
practice and procedures agreed with the Union
regarding the advertising of promotional posts as
they might arise to the staff, whereby all staff are
given an equal opportunity of applying.
(vi) It is Bord policy to maintain overall staff numbers -
and numbers in particular grades - in the staffing
structure as a whole at a level consistent with the
responsibilities of the organisation to the fishing
industry and within the controls imposed by
Government. Any ad-hoc upgradings militate against
the Bord's responsibility to manage within the
present overall grading structure.
(viii) The Bord draws attention to a previous Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,400. This relates to a claim
for the upgrading of two officers on the grade 111
scale, which parallels the present claim, and
recommends the establishment of a job evaluation
scheme together with an appeals procedure.
Discussions are underway with the unions involved in
pursuance of this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that this claim should be dealt with
in the same manner as the claim which was the subject of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 10,400. Accordingly the Court recommends
that the parties should implement the terms of that recommendation
as a matter of urgency, and that the posts which are the subject
of this claim should be evaluated as a priority within any agreed
evaluation scheme.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__5th__February,__1987. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman