Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88886 Case Number: LCR12183 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD (CFB) - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of two fishery officers for re-grading.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, including the agreed job description, and having taken
into account the level of responsibility of the work of the
claimants, is satisfied that their level of remuneration is not
adequate.
The Court recommends that they be placed on a revised scale as
follows:-
#11,362 (x8) to #14,987 with the claimants being placed on the
5th point of the scale viz #13,530.
The terms of Clause 3.2 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public
Service apply to the above recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88886 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12183
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD (CFB)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two fishery officers for re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned were recruited as fishery officers in
1981. This is a recruitment grade for field officers and they
work in the areas of fishery development and protection with a
reporting procedure to inspectors and assistant inspectors in the
field area. In September, 1981, the claimants were assigned to
the Board's research section in Dublin with a reporting procedure
to senior research officers. The Union claims that the range of
duties carried out by the claimants bears no resemblance to those
of fishery officers and is claiming that they be re-graded to
senior technician. The current scales are #8,126 x 8 to #9,710
for fishery officers and #14,271 x 9 to #18,174 for senior
technicians. The two claimants are on the top point of their
scale. The Board rejected the claim and on the 16th September,
1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on the 14th October,
the parties agreed on a joint job description (details supplied to
the Court) but could not agree on the re-grading claim and on the
18th November, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
9th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At a conciliation conference held on October 14th, 1988,
an agreed Management/Union document was submitted to the
conciliation officer (details supplied to the Court). This
document set out the duties and areas of
responsibility/involvement of the claimants. Furthermore,
Management agreed at conciliation that the claimants were not
carrying out the duties of fishery officers but were working
at a level above that grade and that it was essential for the
Board that such work be done.
3. 2. The claimants are seeking a resolution to their regrading
problem from within the existing staff structures currently in
place in the CFB. The majority of the research staff are on
professional (senior research officer) or technical (senior
technician, technician) grades. While the claimants hold
professional qualifications and carry out duties appropriate
to some professional grades, entry to these grades is by open
competition under the Civil Service and Local Appointments
Commission. Thus the grade of senior technician was chosen
for parity/regrading purposes as the level of responsibility
and educational qualifications demanded for this grade best
reflect the qualifications of the candidates and the level of
responsibility given them in the research section.
3. While there is no substantial overlap in duties of the
professional and senior technician grades, the claimants do
carry out the range of duties of the senior technician grade
in addition to some of the duties of the professional (SRO/RO)
grade. Moreover, the claimants have always had a direct
reporting procedure to senior research officers rather than to
any other grades. In addition, the laboratory-management and
staff-direction responsibilities of the senior technician find
a parallel with the claimants. During scientific survey work
the claimants are frequently the sole member of the research
section present and have responsibility for managing and
directing staff, often of equivalent or higher rank, in the
correct compilation of scientific material/samples, etc.
4. The staffing structure proposed by the Department of the
Public Service for the research section as a whole envisaged a
corps of professional staff under a research manager and a
corps of technical staff under a senior laboratory technician.
(The details of the duties of both professional and senior
technician grades were supplied to the Court). It is clear
from this information that the professional and technical
responsibilities do not overlap. The position of the
claimants clearly straddles some aspects of the professional
duties as well as the range of senior technician duties.
Clearly, the claimants are not merely carrying out the duties
of the senior laboratory technician as envisaged by the DPS
but are also carrying out certain professional duties. As
access to the professional grades is controlled by the Civil
Service Commission, it is suggested that regrading/parity with
the grade of senior technician is the most appropriate in the
circumstances.
5. Such a parity would not be without precedent in the CFB.
Currently, two people are on the senior technician grade. One
of these sought regrading from a field grading to that of
senior technician. The choice was made in view of the
technical and complex nature of part of that person's work and
of the status and salary attached to the senior technician
grade.
3. 6. The claimants have been on the maximum point of the
fishery officer scale since 1986. While promotion outlets
have arisen for field-based fishery officers, the claimants
are all but precluded from contesting these promotions due to
the specialist nature of their duties. No promotion outlets
are available for fishery officers within the research
section.
7. Regrading to the lower points of the senior technician
scale, which is what is being sought, would involve an
increase of #4,500 approximately. In view of the anomalous
position of the claimants it is inevitable that a large salary
increase would be required to address their current
inappropriate grading. This is not without precedent as a
similar, in fact larger, increase was involved in a recently
conceded case to four staff members of the CFB angling section
seeking regrading.
8. The Union claim for regrading/parity is based on the
agreed Management/Union document on duties/responsibilities of
the claimants and the obvious relationship between these
duties and those of professional and senior technician grades.
This claim does not involve the creation of new posts. In
requesting a favourable recommendation, the Union can assure
the Court that concession of the claim would not lead to
consequential demands from other employees.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The regrading sought by the claimants is excessive.
Concession of the Union's claim would involve a pay increase
of 87%. The duties and responsibilities being carried out by
the claimants would not correspond to those of technician
grade 1 (or senior technician) employed by the Board.
2. Technician grade 1 or senior technicians have
responsibilities for training and supervision of sub-ordinate
technician staff and for management of the laboratory. The
claimants have no such responsibilities.
3. A report by the Management Services Unit of the Department
of the Public Service in August, 1985, recommended a staff
structure for the research section of the Board with one post
of senior laboratory technician. This post is presently
filled and there is no necessity for the appointment of
further senior laboratory technicians. In any event the
promotion outlet for fishery officers is through the staff
structure and not through technician grades. The claimants,
as previously stated, were recruited as fishery officers.
4. The issue of regrading falls under the Government decision
on recruitment to the Public Service as it would be equivalent
to a promotion. Consequently, the Board cannot agree to
concede this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, including the agreed job description, and having taken
into account the level of responsibility of the work of the
claimants, is satisfied that their level of remuneration is not
adequate.
The Court recommends that they be placed on a revised scale as
follows:-
#11,362 (x8) to #14,987 with the claimants being placed on the
5th point of the scale viz #13,530.
The terms of Clause 3.2 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public
Service apply to the above recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___20th___December,__1988. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman