Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8730 Case Number: LCR11208 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IDA - and - FWUI |
Claim for the upgrading of two grade four construction administrators in the Building Operation Division.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has come to the conclusion that the case made by the Union,
based as it is, in the first instance on a very limited number of
job comparisons, and further relying on a scoring system not fully
supported by the consultants and established in a different
context, is not sustainable and does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8730 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11208
CC862024 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11208
Parties: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim for the upgrading of two grade four construction
administrators in the Building Operation Division.
Background:
2. In 1984, the Union made a claim for the upgrading (from grade
4 to grade 3) of all construction administration staff in the
Building and Management Services Division (BMSD). This claim was
subsequently revised to exclude the less qualified members and was
submitted as a claim for the introduction of a professional and
technical grading structure on behalf of three employees in BMSD.
This claim was considered by the Labour Court on 3rd December,
1984, and rejected in Labour Court Recommendation 9393.
The Union then submitted a claim for the upgrading of two of these
workers from grade 4 (construction administrator) to grade 3
(section manager). The Authority rejected the claim but in order
to assist in resolving the dispute, it was agreed by the parties
that Management would commission the Irish Productivity Centre
(IPC) to evaluate the jobs and issue a draft report as a basis for
further discussion between the parties. At the same time, the
Union had submitted a parallel claim for the upgrading of nine
grant inspector posts and it was agreed by both sides that the IPC
would also carry out a study, based on internal relativities to
process this claim. The terms of reference of the study, as set
down in the IPC Report were: "to examine the relativities of task
and activities of certain staff with activities and roles of a
number of people in comparable posts." The study was to be based
on internal relativities only. A small but agreed representative
sample of jobs from grades 3, 4 and 5 were to be selected and
scored but disagreement arose on both the historical and current
job descriptions (changes had occurred in the claimants' duties
since the lodging of the claim). At a meeting on the 10th
September, 1986, it was agreed that the IPC would draw up both
historical and current job descriptions for the claimants and
score them on both. The IPC issued a draft report in November,
1986, but the parties could not agree on whether or not the
upgradings were warranted. The Union claimed that on the basis of
the score for the claimants' historical job descriptions, that
they should have been upgraded to grade 3 in 1983/84. This was
rejected by the Authority. As no further progress could be made
at local level, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 5th December, 1986. A
conciliation conference took place on the 12th January, 1987, but
no progress was possible and the issue was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on the 24th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Taking into account that the same criteria used to
score the job holders was entirely similar to that used
for the grant inspectors upgrading claim by I.P.C. and
the draft report, which emerged for the grant
inspectors showed the breakpoint at 273, it is the
Union's contention that it therefore follows that on
reaching a score of 280 and 282 respectfully for
1983/84, the two claimants were in fact grade 3s at
that time.
(b) In previous discussions regarding the grant inspectors'
claim, the Union disagreed with the fact that job 4c
was not included for purposes of the calculation of the
breakpoint and it was agreed to remove the breakpoint
temporarily until agreement could be reached. The
I.P.C. did however commit themselves professionally and
independently in that draft report as to where they saw
the breakpoint. In fact, the I.P.C. spent a good deal
of time convincing the Union that job 4c could not be
used in the calculation of the breakpoint. The Union
is of the view that because the I.P.C. did commit
themselves to a breakpoint and because the job holders
have scored higher than this breakpoint then they were
grade 3 in 1983/84.
(c) The Union further argues that because the Authority
operates on the basis of no loss of grade or
renumeration because of diminution of job through no
fault of the individual, it follows that the two
members should also be grade 3 in 1987.
(d) Management has argued that the basket of jobs was too
narrow and that it would be difficult to establish
where the breakpoint would be without a full job
evaluation. The Union has always been of a view
regarding this exercise that the I.P.C. was the
independent body brought in to carry out a particular
exercise and because of the fact that the basket of
jobs was agreed by both sides, the Union is prepared to
accept that decision.
(e) The Authority has argued that it could not agree with
the I.P.C.'s description of the jobs done by the
claimants. The Union rejects this contention,
especially in view of the fact that the I.P.C. is an
independent body and interviewed and examined in detail
all aspects of the claimants' jobs, as well as
interviewing Management, as per the agreement of the
10th September, 1986. The Union accepts that the
I.P.C. presented job descriptions on foot of above and
in view of the previous failure to agree job
descriptions, sees no other alternative but to accept
the findings of an independent consultant to resolve
the matter.
Authority's arguments:
4. (i) The I.P.C. has as requested only rated each job and
has not made any grading recommendations. The Union
has drawn conclusions which are not supported by the
report and are not safe to draw from such a small
sample of posts. There are now, and were in 1983/84,
upwards of 120 grade 3 and 220 grade 4 posts in the
IDA. To draw definitive grading conclusions for two
posts, based on historical job descriptions which
have not been agreed by both sides, and measured
against such a small sample, is not acceptable either
to the IDA or I.P.C.
(ii) In addition, whilst the historical jobs are scored
some 25 to 30 points higher than the current jobs,
they are still a further 20 points below the scores
of the grade 3 posts which were rated. In order to
consider regrading both the current and historic
posts would need to have scored considerably higher
and to have maintained this high level.
(iii) At a recent meeting with the I.P.C., the Assistant
Divisional Director of the Business Advisory Service,
stated that he would have been happier if a threshold
had never been inserted in the draft report on the
grant inspectors' claim as the sample size was far
too small. In the present case he stated that not
alone was the sample too small but it was also
dealing with historical and unagreed job descriptions
and therefore if there were inaccuracies in the job
description then there would also be inaccuracies in
the ratings. Furthermore, he argued the fact that
the comparison between current and historical jobs
made the exercise even more dubious. In addition, it
was not possible to state definitely where the break
point should be as it was possible to use three or
four different methodologies which would give
different breakpoints.
(iv) Management does not accept the accuracy of the
historical job descriptions on which this claim is
based. When the I.P.C. failed to secure agreement
between the two staff involved and their manager on
the content of the job description, it was agreed
that the I.P.C. would prepare a job description
themselves. The IDA believes that the compromise job
description which emerged through this exercise is
seriously at variance with the actual tasks and
responsibility of the staff in question in 1983/84.
(v) There are seven grade 4 staff in the department where
the grade 4 staff under discussion are located. All
these grade 4's were employed to, and actually do,
similar work, but not all of them are qualified to
the same level. Consultants are employed to carry
out any function which requires a specific
qualification. Even though some staff may choose to
complete these functions by utilising personal
attributes, they are not expected/required to
complete these functions by reason of the position
they occupy. However as all staff in the department
are fundamentally employed in like work, a relativity
claim would be inevitable.
(vi) A successful outcome to the claim would undoubtedly
lead to the IDA being inundated with similar claims
of marginal validity. Therefore, whilst the cost of
this particular claim is relatively minor, the cost
implications are major at a time when budgetary
constraints would make it impossible for the
management to meet this cost. In addition it would
have a most disruptive effect on the IDA's existing
grading structure which has served the organisation
well over the years and enabled it to facilitate a
level of internal mobility and dynamism in a changing
environment. It would also distort established
reporting relationships as it would mean staff at the
same grade reporting to each other.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has come to the conclusion that the case made by the Union,
based as it is, in the first instance on a very limited number of
job comparisons, and further relying on a scoring system not fully
supported by the consultants and established in a different
context, is not sustainable and does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____29th___May,___1987. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman