Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86898 Case Number: LCR10935 Section / Act: S67 Parties: APSO - and - ITGWU |
Implementation of job evaluation report.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that there is agreement among them that the
implementation of any recommendations made by the Joint
Evaluation/Grading Committee would require the prior sanction of
the Departments of Foreign Affairs and the Public Service. In the
circumstances it is reasonable that the Departments should be able
to satisfy themselves as to the appropriateness of the
recommendations made.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Departments should
undertake whatever examination is necessary with the management of
the Agency, this to be completed within three weeks, i.e. the time
envisaged in the Departments' proposal to the Court. The
Departments should then without delay convey their decision
regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Joint
Evaluation/Grading Committee.
The Court notes that in the agreement reached at Conciliation to
which the Departments, Management and the Union were parties, no
caveat was entered by the Departments as to the methodology to be
used by the Committee.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86898 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10935
CC861242 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10935
PARTIES: AGENCY FOR PERSONAL SERVICE OVERSEAS (A.P.S.O.)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
Implementation of job evaluation report.
Background:
2. The Agency is a State sponsored body incorporated in 1984 and
funded by the Department of Foreign affairs. The Agency's primary
objective is the promotion of temporary service in developing
countries of the world for their economic and social development
by persons from Ireland.
3. Initially the Agency employed a staff of five. By 1978 this
had increased to nineteen at which time the Agency's Executive
Committee undertook an exercise to review staff gradings and
salaries. The result of the review was acceptable to the staff
but was rejected by the Department of the Public Service which
referred the matter to its Management Service Unit. The
Management Service Unit conducted its own study of the matter the
results of which conflicted with the review carried out by the
Agency's Executive Committee. The study was accepted by the
Agency but rejected by the staff.
4. In 1980 the Agency's staff became members of the Union and
that year the Union submitted a claim for the regrading of these
workers. The claim was rejected by the Agency and the matter
became the subject of a Labour Court investigation in 1981. The
Court issued its Recommendation in March, 1982 (Recommendation No.
7002 refers). The Recommendation was rejected by the Union
following which a five week strike took place which was settled at
a Labour Court conciliation conference on the basis of setting up
a Joint Evaluation/Grading Committee whose terms of reference were
to decide on appropriate grading. This committee consisted of
three members from each side and was chaired by an independent
chairman from the Irish Productivity Centre.
5. During the period of the Committee's work a difference emerged
on the following:-
(a) the entitlement of the Committee to look at all jobs
(b) the negotiating status of the Management side.
These were the subject of a conciliation conference in November,
1983, at which the following agreement was reached:-
(a) the Committee could look at all jobs
(b) the parties represented at the Committee were
independent but could consult.
The Committee concluded its report in October, 1985 (copy supplied
to the Court). The report was accepted by the Union and staff and
by the Agency's Executive Committee but the Departments of Foreign
Affairs and the Public Service refused to sanction implementation
of the report's recommendations. The Department of the Public
Service offered to have its Management Service Unit carry out a
survey of certain posts within the Agency. The offer was rejected
by the Union and the matter was referred, on 18th July, 1986, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following a
conciliation conference, which took place on 5th November, 1986
(the earliest date suitable to the Agency) the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 12th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The establishment of an Evaluation/Grading Committee
was agreed at the settlement of an industrial dispute
at a Labour Court Conciliation Conference, which was
attended by all of the parties to this dispute. There
was no dissenting party to the settlement reached at
that conference. After three years' hard work, the
evaluation grading committee has now completed its
task. Therefore, its findings should be implemented.
(ii) The Agency, which is the immediate employer in this
case, has accepted the findings of the
Evaluation/Grading Committee. This is the first time
in the eight year history of this issue that
Management and Union have been in agreement on the
matter. This is mainly due to the expert advice and
professionalism of the Irish Productivity Centre.
(iii) The type of Evaluation/Grading Committee which has
been at work in the Agency is normal for the carrying
out of job evaluation and grading exercises and it is
the accepted practice where such committees issue a
report, that their findings are implemented. Not to
do so, particularly in these circumstances, would
create an extremely dangerous precedent.
(iv) At the conciliation conference in November, 1986, the
Department of the Public Service claimed it had the
right to approve or not to approve salaries and
grading and that in order to exercise this function,
it wished to have its Management Services Unit examine
the scheme by carrying out a further separate
evaluation. This is an abuse of the Department's
position. It has already approved the establishment
and terms of reference of the Evaluation/Grading
Committee. Therefore it should now accept the
findings of the Committee.
(v) The Union cannot accept the Management Services Unit
of the Department of the Public Service carrying out a
further study of these jobs given the number of times
these have already been evaluated. In any event, the
present dispute dates back to a study carried out by
the Department's Management Services Unit in 1979
which knocked not only the staff's grading
aspirations, but the Employer's considered opinion on
the matter.
(vi) The grading and evaluation exercise in the Agency has
been carried out in the normal way by a joint
Evaluation/Grading Committee with an independent
chair. It has issued its report. The report has been
accepted by the Union and by the Employer and
therefore, it should now be implemented in full.
Agency's argument:
7. The Agency has approved the recommendation of the
Evaluation/Grading Committee, but sanction to
implement them has been refused. The Agency's
recently revised Memorandum and Articles of
Association require under Article 60 that;-
"The staff of the Agency ...... shall be appointed
upon such terms and conditions, and be paid such
remuneration and allowances as the Board, with the
approval of the Minister given the consent of the
Minister for the Public Service, shall determine".
In addition, Memorandum 2 (xi) and the conditions of
the Grant-in-Aid similarly restrict the Agency. For
this reason, the Agency is unable to implement the
agreed recommendation.
Department's arguments:
8. (a) The Agency is a state agency financed exclusively from
public funds by way of a Grant-in-Aid. Since its
inception, it has been required under the "Terms and
Conditions" of this Grant-in-Aid to have the consent
of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the Public
Service to any alteration in the rates of remuneration
of its staff. Recently, the Agency's Memorandum and
Articles of Association were revised, (see paragraph 7
above) following the recommendations of the review
body on the Agency which considered its future role,
structure, etc.
There has, in addition, been a long standing
requirement under Government policy for prior
consultation with, and clearance from, the Department
to any offers or commitments on pay and conditions.
(b) In the course of discussions between the staff and the
management of the Agency which preceded the work of
the evaluation and grading committee, certain
differences of opinion arose on the issues of (a)
which posts were reviewable, and (b) the freedom of
management's representatives on the Committee. These
were discussed at a conciliation conference in
November 1983, and the agreed position was that any
post on a first application would be evaluated, and
that both parties on the Committee would participate
independently, but that they could consult with
whoever they might wish. However, this did not set
aside in any way the requirement for Departmental
sanction to any proposed regradings which might be
sought, nor had the Departmental responsibility for
the gradings of Agency staff been delegated to the
Committee, or to the Agency. Indeed, the Departments
had foreseen the need to avoid a situation in which
the committee would make agreed recommendations,
accepted by Management and Union, but which ultimately
did not provide a basis for sanction acceptable to the
Departments. The management of the Agency was asked
to consult with the Departments, who could advise as
to the extent to which agreement to particular
proposals, as they arose in the course of the
Committee's work, should be given.
(c) The Departments were not appraised of the choice of
job evaluation method (Multifactor Paired Comparison)
adopted at the suggestion of the Irish Productivity
Centre Chairman until October, 1984 (details of the
operation of the Multifactor paired comparison method
supplied to the Court). The Agency was then told that
this methodology would ultimately not be acceptable to
the Department as a basis for justifying the
recommendations of the Committee. In January, 1985,
the Departments offered to instigate a survey, to be
completed in 2/3 weeks, by the Management Services
Section of the Department of the Public Service,
either of certain posts in the Agency which the
Committee's work to date was highlighting or of a
choice of posts as agreed between the Agency and the
Union. The Executive Committee of the Agency however,
decided that the Evaluation and Grading Committee
should proceed to complete its report. When sanction
was eventually sought from the Departments for the
Committee's recommendations, the Departments repeated
this offer and again explained that the report's
methodology was not acceptable to them as a means of
determining the appropriate grading of Agency staff.
Sanction had to depend on the Management Services Unit
of the Department of the Public Service being
satisfied as to what was justifiable. At the
conciliation conference on 5th November, 1986, the
Departments and Agency again offered to have an
immediate validation survey carried out by Management
Services, but this was rejected by the Union.
(d) On its inception, the Grading structure in the Agency
was based on that for civil service grades, as is
normally the case in non-commercial state agencies.
Through this structure, the pay of the Agency grades
has been specifically linked to that of the service
grades, and this relationship has been maintained.
The grading assigned to the Agency was established on
the basis of job comparison, which assesses posts in
the organisation by reference to the broad band of
duties attaching to grades in the Civil Service. The
duties of the posts under examination are considered,
and by reference to this, a comparator grade within
the Civil Service is selected; these would normally
be general service grades. This principle of
"broad-banding" has been accepted by, among others,
the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public
Sector, the Civil Service Arbitrator, etc. In
assessing claims for changes in grading, the
Management Services Unit of the Department of the
Public Service considers these on their merits using
the Job Comparison method, the results of which the
Court has already, in effect, endorsed in
Recommendation No. 7002, which dealt with the gradings
of Agency staff in 1982.
(e) In the circumstances, the offer made by the
Departments - i.e. to evaluate the grading exercise
already done by the Evaluation and Grading Committee
in accordance with standard procedures where Civil
Service grading is involved - should be accepted by
the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that there is agreement among them that the
implementation of any recommendations made by the Joint
Evaluation/Grading Committee would require the prior sanction of
the Departments of Foreign Affairs and the Public Service. In the
circumstances it is reasonable that the Departments should be able
to satisfy themselves as to the appropriateness of the
recommendations made.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Departments should
undertake whatever examination is necessary with the management of
the Agency, this to be completed within three weeks, i.e. the time
envisaged in the Departments' proposal to the Court. The
Departments should then without delay convey their decision
regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Joint
Evaluation/Grading Committee.
The Court notes that in the agreement reached at Conciliation to
which the Departments, Management and the Union were parties, no
caveat was entered by the Departments as to the methodology to be
used by the Committee.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman