Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88794 Case Number: AD8870 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FOROIGE - and - ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation NO. BC 160/88 concerning the regrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioners
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88794 DECISION NO. AD7088
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: FOROIGE
and
ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation NO. BC 160/88 concerning the regrading of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The employee has worked for Foroige for approximately seven
years. Her duties involve general secretarial work. The grading
structure within the Organisation is as follows Grade V, -
Secretary of Foroige Grade 111 - Secretary to the
Director/Assistant Director, Accounts Clerk, Grade 11 - General
Secretarial. The employee works as a Grade 11 and the Union
maintains on her behalf that her job should be regraded to Grade
III. Managment maintains that her correct grading is Grade 11 and
has had the post evaluated by an official of a Vocational
Education Committee, because salaries in Foroige are based on VEC
grades (details supplied to the Court). The evaluation indicated
that the employee's job was correctly located within Grade 11.
However Management did offer to appoint her to a vacancy within
Grade 111, but she turned down this offer. As no agreement could
be reached in local discussions the dispute was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation on the
23rd May, 1988. On the 8th June, 1988 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:-
"....In the light of the above I cannot but uphold the
decision of the Company to regard the employee's job as
within Grade 11 and therefore I recommend her claim must
fail. Of course if at any time a further job evaluation
exercise is embarked upon and that produces a result
different from the one achieved in the earlier exercise then
the implications of that must be accepted by the management."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, and
on the 14th October, 1988 appealed it to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on the 18th November, 1988."
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's contention that the duties performed by
the employee are equal in every respect to those performed by
other staff on Grade 111. Management were not prepared to
agree, and the basis for their disagreement was that they had
asked a member of the V.E.C. to give a report on the grading
structure in the Organiation. The person who assessed the
post states that he asked two colleagues to assist him to make
recommendations in the light of the information at their
disposal and from the job description received. The Union
does not know what information he received or from whom he
received it. The Union does know that the process of job
evaluation was never discussed with the staff of Foroige.
What was requested of them was a "brief" job description. The
employee provided a "brief" job description (details supplied
to the Court) and it was on this basis that the evaluation in
her case was made.
2. The Union explained to the employee the workings of the
job evaluation process and asked her to write a job
description. The worker did so. As a matter of routine the
worker also takes on the duties of her Grade 111 colleagues
when requested to do so (details of her job description and
extra duties appropriate to Grade 111 have been supplied to
the Court). The Union believes that an examination of the
worker's job description - together with the extra duties -
adds to the flexibility which she gladly gives in the course
of her work, and compares very favourably with the assessors
ideas of Grade 111 work. She is therefore entitled to the
advancement sought.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the end of 1986 the employee sought an increase in
salary, and as she is a very good staff member Management was
most anxious to treat her claim sympathetically. Having
considered the matter it was decided that there was no basis
on which to grant an increase unless the worker's post could
be upgraded from Grade 11 to Grade 111 (details of Grade's 11,
and 111 salary scales supplied to the Court). It was decided
to seek the advice of outside independent experts on the
matter. An experienced member of a V.E.C. undertook to assess
all administrative grades within the Organisation. He was
assisted by two other experienced staff and a working party
formed to undertake the job review. The working party sought
job descriptions from all of the staff and recommended a
clerical and administrative structure within the Organisation.
The report which was accepted by Management recommended that
there would be no change in the grading of the employee's
post. Shortly after the working party's report was issued the
secretary to the Director and Assistant Director (a Grade 111
post) resigned her position. Management sought to resolve the
issue by offering this post to the employee. She, however,
declined the offer. The offer was extended again on two
further occasions, but the employee declined, stating that she
was happy in her present position.
2. Management holds the view that Grade 11 is the correct
grade of post currently held by the employee. This view is
supported by its own assessment of the situation, the report
of the independent working party, and the recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner. Management further believes that if
the worker's present job were to be upgraded to Grade 111,
that this would be likely to have implications for other
administrative jobs within the Organisation especially the
other two similar general secretarial posts which carry Grade
11 status. It would similarly be likely to have implications
for the new administrative posts - two Grade 11's and one
Grade 111 - which are to be created shortly, within the
Organisation. Should all Grade 11 posts be upgraded, it is
Management's view that it would be totally out of line with
similar posts in the V.E.C.'s and the public sector generally.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioners
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
9th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.