Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87671 Case Number: LCR11487 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NAT. COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of 3 clerical workers for compensation following the implementation of a re-organisation programme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends the following ex gratia payments in full settlement of
the claim.
Ms. D'Arcy and Ms. Scanlon #600 each
Ms. Gray #250.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87671 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11487
CC87224
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11487
Parties: NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 3 clerical workers for compensation
following the implementation of a re-organisation programme.
Background:
2. Following consultation and negotiation between the College and
the Union, the Institute of Public Administration (I.P.A.) were
commissioned to carry out a survey of clerical, administrative,
technical and library staff under the following terms of
reference.
"To assess the work of the above grades in the National
College of Art and Design and in the light of that
assessment to recommend appropriate grading and pay
relationships for the staff".
It was agreed that the effective date of implementation of payment
in respect of recommended upgradings would be July, 1984. The
survey commenced in February, 1985 and took approximately one year
to complete. It resulted in a significant number of upgradings
for the categories of staff covered by the survey and the findings
were implemented in November, 1986 retrospectively to 1st July,
1984. In the cases of the 3 workers here concerned the I.P.A.
report proposed reductions in their workloads and the creation of
new posts to cover the extra work requirement (details supplied to
the Court). One of the workers Ms. Gray was upgraded to clerical
officer in addition to having her workload reduced. The job
changes proposed by the I.P.A. did not come into being until June,
July, and August, 1987. The Union claimed compensation by the
application of 4 additional salary increments to each of the
workers concerned. This was rejected by the College. The matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
5th March, 1987. A conciliation conference was held on 10th
April, 1987. As no agreement was possible both parties agreed to
a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 15th October, 1987 a
date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The I.P.A. report was published in November, 1986. The
report recommended substantial reductions in the
workers respective workloads. It was agreed by both
parties that the report be implemented from 1st July,
1984. The workers carried out the extra duties from
July, 1984 up to June, July and August, 1987. They did
not receive any extra payments for carrying out these
duties.
(b) The issue of the workers' workloads has now been
resolved. They no longer have to carry out the extra
duties which the I.P.A. report recommended new posts
should be created for. The Union are seeking
compensation for the period these workers had to carry
out these duties. If it was the case that these duties
were still being carried out by the workers concerned
the Union's claim would be for an ongoing payment.
(c) Payment of compensation would help sort out the
anomalies which arose in this case because of the
I.P.A. report.
College's arguments:
4. (i) The College contends that Ms. Gray and Ms. D'Arcy were
contractically bound to carry out the duties which they
were performing up to the time of the re-allocation of
some of these duties on foot of the I.P.A. report. The
workers were recruited and signed contracts to work in
the areas for which they are now claiming compensation.
The position of Ms. Scanlon is different in that she
was allocated some extra duties subsequent to her
appointment. In all 3 cases part of the work was taken
and assigned elsewhere. In no instance was the work
upgraded.
(ii) Concession of the claim would have serious repercussive
effects for other college grades covered by the I.P.A.
report and they too could be expected to launch similar
type retrospective claims notwithstanding the fact that
a majority of staff covered by the report benefited by
this review.
(iii) It would be misleading to conclude that the revisions
resulted in a reduction of the workers workload. The
object of the revision was to allow the workers
sufficient opportunity to concentrate on more detailed
aspects of their jobs without necessarily incurring a
reduction in the overall level of activity of volume in
the revised duties concerned on those discharged
heretofore.
(iv) The College wishes to draw the Court's attention to the
situation in the Civil Service where payment of the
allowance for the performance of higher duties would be
regarded as being in conflict with Government policy in
the non-filling of vacancies/promotions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends the following ex gratia payments in full settlement of
the claim.
Ms. D'Arcy and Ms. Scanlon #600 each
Ms. Gray #250.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__29th___October,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / J. C. Deputy Chairman