Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87195 Case Number: LCR11231 Section / Act: S67 Parties: I.I.R.S. - and - LGPSU |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of 8 workers, for upgrading.
Recommendation:
6. The Court notes the pay and grading relationship between the
Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the Civil
Service.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of
the view that the upgrading claims should be dealt with by means
of an internal appeal. This appeal should be heard by an ad hoc
Appeals Board, comprised of a management representative and worker
representative and an independant Chairperson.
In the event of the parties being unable to agree a Chairperson,
the Court would be prepared to nominate one.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87195 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11231
CC87206 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11231
PARTIES: INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND STANDARDS
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of 8 workers, for upgrading.
Background:
2. The Institute employs approximately 150 clerical and
administrative workers. While there is no formal job evaluation
scheme in existence, the jobs are classified broadly along the
lines of the Civil Service clerical and executive grades. The
Institute and the unions (Local Government and Public Services
Union, and the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland) have in the
past attempted to establish a suitable job evaluation scheme.
These efforts, however, were not successful and the parties agreed
to discuss the jobs of those workers seeking upgrading, in an
attempt to resolve their claims. As a result of these discussions
three workers were upgraded.
3. The Union subsequently lodged a claim on behalf of the workers
who were not upgraded. The Union wants these workers' jobs
upgraded or a mechanism for adjudicating on their claims within a
reasonable period of time, suggesting a grading appeals committee,
consisting of representatives of the parties and an independent
chairman. The Institute responded that the jobs of the workers in
question are not undergraded and that it would not be appropriate
to set up a grading appeals committee as there is no formal job
evaluation scheme to provide such a committee with clear-cut
criteria for deciding on claims. In addition, the Institute
pointed out that it is in the process of introducing
computerisation into various departments and therefore a job
evaluation would not be appropriate until the computerisation is
completed. Local level discussions failed to provide a basis for
settlement and on 5th February, 1987, the parties referred the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. In the
absence of any settlement at a conciliation conference on 3rd
March, 1987, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 18th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Union believes that having regard to the general
descriptions of work in the Civil Service, each of the
jobs of the workers concerned merits the higher grade
claimed (details provided to the Court).
(ii) The Institute claims that there is no suitable job
evaluation scheme which can be applied to the
organisation. The Union believes that this is not the
case. Out of all the organisations that the Union has
dealt with, the Institute is the only one to take this
stance.
(iii) The Union has, over the years, proposed numerous job
evaluation schemes and all have been rejected by the
Institute, even though these schemes have been used
successfully elsewhere.
(iv) The Union believes that it would be unreasonable to
delay the settlement of the claim because of
computerisation. The computerisation has been in
progress for quite a while, with the co-operation of
the Union. The usual procedure with this type of new
technology is to have discussions on an on-going basis
as the system changes.
Institute's arguments:
5. (a) The Institute, in its staff grading, must have regard
to guidelines supplied by the Civil Service. Parity
of pay with the Civil Service grades exists on the
basis of similarity of responsibilities. In view of
this, the Institute has tended to be liberal in the
matter of grading. (Details supplied to the Court).
(b) The committee of appeal arrangement suggested by the
Union is something which is used in the context of a
fully developed job evaluation scheme. Since this is
not the situation in this case, it is not, therefore,
appropriate.
(c) Computerisation is currently taking place in the
Institute and therefore it is not appropriate, at
present, to consider the grading of the posts
concerned. The Institute will consider the jobs in
the post-computerisation situation.
(d) Five of the workers concerned in this claim are at the
equivalent of Staff Officer grade in the Civil
Service. In the Civil Service it is proposed that
this grade be merged with the Executive Officer grade.
The Institute intends to maintain the parity
arrangement in the light of any such change.
(e) The Government has imposed an embargo, inter alia, on
promotions throughout the public service, in an effort
to reduce public service pay costs. The greater part
of the Institute's funding is by Government
grant-in-aid and this restriction applies to the
Institute.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court notes the pay and grading relationship between the
Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the Civil
Service.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of
the view that the upgrading claims should be dealt with by means
of an internal appeal. This appeal should be heard by an ad hoc
Appeals Board, comprised of a management representative and worker
representative and an independant Chairperson.
In the event of the parties being unable to agree a Chairperson,
the Court would be prepared to nominate one.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman