LCR11393

Subject:
Claim on behalf of three workers for the retention of level of responsibility.

Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that it is unable to recommend that the Union's claim be
conceded.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD87544 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11393
CC87785 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11393


Parties: HEALTH EDUCATION BUREAU
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)

and

ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS


Subject:

1. Claim on behalf of three workers for the retention of level of
responsibility.

Background:

2. In 1983 a job evaluation exercise was carried out on all the
posts in the Bureau. Following discussions and negotiations
between the Union and the bureau two outstanding claims remained
at the end of 1985 in respect of two people in grade 5. The Union
sought a higher grade for both of them given the responsibilities
involved in one case and the wide range of duties in the other.
These claims were referred to conciliation and in November, 1985,
the Union agreed to defer its claim as it was given to understand
at that time that the matter was resolvable in the context of an
upcoming reorganisation within the Bureau. The Union now claims
that these workers do not have the same range of responsibilities
as heretofore and the previous claim for upgrading has been
undermined. It wants to have their job restructured to give them



at least the same level of responsibility as heretofore, or a
higher level which could possibly lead to regrading.

3. Another member of staff who believes she is adversely affected
by the reorganisation is employed at grade 4 level. In the job
evaluation exercise she was upgraded from grade 3 to grade 4.
Since the reorganisation she has been given work mainly of grade
three level. The Union is seeking to have her job redesigned to
include a higher level of responsibility. It suggested that
pending the review in January next a temporary worker or someone
from the work experience programme be recruited to give the
incumbent a chance to develop the job further.

4. The bureau rejected the claims. It said that the new
structure is in situ since January last and it will review it when
it has been in operation for one year. In the meantime, as with
all other employees in the Bureau, these workers have their "core
Tasks" to perform and it is up to each individual to develop their
jobs by involving themselves in the various programmes, run by the
Bureau. In this way it is possible that when the new structure is
reviewed these posts could then be of a higher value than at
present. No agreement was possible between the parties and on
13th May, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 6th July, 1987. Agreement was not reached and on 8th July,
1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 24th
August, 1987.


Union's arguments:

5. (i) Because of the restructuring, the workers' jobs have
5een devalued. This has serious consequences,
particularly for the Grade 5 workers in the light of
the Bureau's and Department of Health's comments that
these jobs should be re-evaluated. Furthermore, the
workers' career prospects both inside and outside the
Bureau have been eroded.

(ii) One of the Grade 5 worker concerned has had his job
devalued in the following respects:

- he used to report directly to the Director, HEB.
He no longer does so, but reports direct to a
Divisional Manager,

- he used to prepare annual Research and Community
programmes and budgets for approval by the HEB.
He no longer does so, but contributes to the
preparation of the Research programme and budget,

- he used to manage the Community Health Education
programme with a budget of up to #145,000. He no
longer does so and this function has been assigned
to the Manager, Programmes Division,

- he used to lead the Community Health Education
Team. There is no team in existence following the
restructuring,


- he used to participate as a member of the HEB
Management group and thereby contribute to the
formulation of HEB policy and to the planning of
HEB programmes. There are now no meetings of a
management group.

(iii) In the restructuring he had been titled "Evaluation and
Research Officer". He shares an office with another
"Evaluation and Research Officer" who is at Grade 7.
They have similar duties and responsibilities, working
relations, qualifications and experience. For
example:-

- both research in health education in order to
assist in the planning, implementation and
evaluation of HEB programmes;
- both contribute to the preparation of the annual
Research programme and budget for approval by
the HEB;
- both manage research projects in accordance with
the agreed programme;
- both report to the Manager (Acting), Evaluation
and Research Division;
- both co-ordinate the contributions of the HEB
staff for various aspects of programme planning
and delivery;
- both supervise the work of a Secretary, Grade 3
whose services they share;
- both supervise researchers in various research
projects;
- both are graduates with a Masters Degree in
Sociology;
- both have substantial experience in research and
education.


(iv) The loss in job responsibility of the other Grade 5
i.e. the Finance and Personnel Officer has been as
follows:-

- the effect of the re-structuring has been to
considerably reduce the level of responsibility
of her work, in particular the loss of
responsibility for the Voluntary Organisations
Programme which she had carried for the previous
three and a half years;
- the loss of a Grade 3 Secretary/Accounts
Assistant from the Finance and Organisation
Division has seriously undermined her position
within the organisation. This officer
previously reported to her;
- the loss of responsibility seriously jeopardises
her existing claim for regrading. The
Department of Health had already agreed to have
an independent assessor examine the position of
Grade 5 staff within the organisation;
- the work which she has been offered outside her
core function is not at the same level of
responsibility of previous work on the basis of
which she had claimed regrading;
- the work which she previously carried out as
Leader of the Voluntary Organisations Programme
has now been allocated to a Grade 7 officer on
the basis that the importance of this work
requires the supervision of a more senior member
of staff.


(v) The general effects of restructuring on the Grade 4 i.e
the Administrator Assistant/Secretary are:-

- her position has been downgraded;
- the job has not been properly assessed or
evaluated;
- it represents a fundamental change in work
discipline and career path. At present 75% of
her work was carried by a Grade 3 (i.e.,
photocopying invoices, completing computer input
sheets and inputting into computer);
- her relativity to the other Grade 4 staff in
terms of work status has been undermined;
- her supervisory responsibility has been removed;
- the level of work is inappropriate to Grade 4,
particularly for someone with long service and
on the maximum point of the scale;
- her position in relation to 4 Voluntary
Organisations Programme has been downgraded.

(vi) The Union has available submissions on each
individual's job with the background to each case. The
Court is requested to recommend that the workers
positions of responsibility within the organisation be
restored, to a level which is no less than that
obtaining prior to the restructuring.

Company's arguments:

6. (i) An extensive job evaluation exercise was carried out in
September, 1984. In the case of the Grade 4 Worker,
she was recommended for up-grading and was up-graded.
No up-grading was recommended in the cases of the two
Grade 5 workers. A points system of evaluation was



used and as a result certain cases were considered
borderline. However, neither of these two cases were
borderline (details supplied to the Court).

(ii) A major restructuring of the operation of the Bureau
has just been completed, therefore it would be
inopportune to carry out a further evaluation for at
least a twelve month period when this new structure has
had the opportunity to settle down properly. This new
structure has established a more clearly identifiable
role for each employee. Therefore it will be easier to
evaluate the jobs at a future date. There is great
opportunity for an individual to develop and enhance
their positions during this period. To this end the
Bureau will support every employee in any way possible.
A re-examination of the current grading, if warranted
or justified, could be carried out at the end of this
transition period. It would be a futile exercise to
contemplate such an examination at present.

(iii) Each individual must carry out certain core duties
within their own section. However the opportunity
exists and will continue to exist for everyone to
become involved in other areas/programmes which could
result in individuals developing their own roles within
the Bureau and thereby justifying a re-grading at a
future stage. The onus to a large degree is on the
individual to expand his/her own position.


(iv) The grade an individual holds is related to the average
level of responsibility within the position. Specific
duties may be of a higher or a lower level depending on
the work available and the needs of the Bureau at the
time. It would not be practicable or feasible to
recruit extra staff to carry out these duties.

(v) Management believe they have acted in a fair and
reasonable way towards the three workers and their jobs
have not been adversely affected in any way. In the
Bureau, more so than in other organisations, the
opportunity exists for people to develop and advance.

RECOMMENDATION:

7. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that it is unable to recommend that the Union's claim be
conceded.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman.

4th September, 1987.
P.F./J.C.