Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88860 Case Number: LCR12187 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS |
Claim, on behalf of two employees for re-grading.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted the Board's intention to submit to the Minister
for Agriculture and Food a proposed Programme/Structure by
mid-December. The Court considers that it is reasonable for the
claimants to expect that their grading should be clarified within
a reasonable period of time.
The Court in Recommendation No. 11672 has already recommended that
a grading appeals mechanism should be developed and agreed in the
new Authority. The Court now recommends that clarification of the
claimants' grading should be effected as soon as possible. Should
this not be done by 31st March next and if the grading appeals
mechanism is not in place at that time the Court will be prepared
to consider the claimants' case on its merits.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88860 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12187
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of two employees for re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The staff concerned have been employed as Financial Accountant
and Management Accountant by the organisation (formerly ACOT)
since 1980. Since that time they have been graded at Assistant
Principal level. The Union contends that they should both be
graded as Professional Accountant Grade 1, the equivalent of Chief
Agricultural Development Officer (CADO) and Senior
Research/Administrative Officer, (An Foras Taluntais). In
September, 1988 the claim for re-grading was formally submitted to
management. The current salary scale for the grade of Assistant
Principal is #19,379 to #23,002 and for Professional Accountant
Grade 1 is #23,578 to #27,265. The new authority, Teagasc, was
established on 8th September, 1988. Management's position in
relation to the claim is that it should await developments in
relation to the Programme/Structure of the new organisation. On
3rd November, 1988, the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two claimants are professional accountants and are
members of various recognised accountancy bodies. The posts
which they hold were advertised as Financial Accountant and
Management Accountant. The essential requirements were
membership of a recognised accountancy body and experience at
middle management level of operating financial and/or
management accounting systems. Details of their
responsibilities within the organisation were supplied to the
Court. Before the appointments were made the Department of
Agriculture insisted that the posts should be filled at
Assistant Principal level.
2. Management indicated that the anomaly thus created would
be remedied in ACOT's statutory staff scheme for management
grades. In July, 1984 in a document drawn up as part of this
scheme, management proposed the upgrading of the claimants to
the grade of Senior Research/Administrative Officer, (An Foras
Taluntais). The proposed scheme and the upgrading were not
implemented however.
3. Each of the claimants reports to a Head of Function, for
whom they regularly deputise and with whom they have many
duties in common. They are both eligible to compete for posts
at Head of Function level. The maximum salary of the Head of
Function is #32,727. This is 42% greater than that of the
claimants which is #23,002. The normal salary difference in
such situations is about 20%.
4. The current grading of the claimants has created both
internal and external anomalies. Several staff in the
organisation graded at CADO level report directly to a Head of
Function. These staff have duties of a similar level of
responsibility to the claimants. Staff in what was formerly
An Foras Taluntais undertake the same accountancy duties in
the organisation as the claimants. They are paid at the
Senior Administrative Officer rate (similar to that of
Professional Accountant, Grade 1 and CADO). Accountants in
the public service, equivalent in standing to the claimants
are paid at Professional Accountant Grade 1 level. (The Union
provided a comparison of duties to the Court).
5. The existing situation affects the claimants' prospects of
redeployment to the Civil Service. They were excluded from
the redeployment competition for Principal Officer posts in
the Civil Service while their colleagues at CADO level were
eligible to compete for such posts. This is also the case in
relation to upcoming redeployment competitions for
professional posts in the Civil Service. While the claimants
sincerely wish to remain in the employment of Teagasc, they
must have regard to the fact that due to the budgetary
situation, staffing may be reduced. They must therefore
consider their position in relation to redeployment or early
retirement. Should they not be regraded, a considerable
financial loss would be sustained in such situations.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the establishment of the New Authority, Teagasc, in
September, 1988, the Director, Chairman and Members of the
Authority have been visiting centres throughout the Country.
In mid-December a proposed Programme/Structure is to be sent
to the Minister for Agriculture and Food by the Authority. It
is Management's view that the present claim can only be
considered in the context of proposals on the staff/grading
levels in Teagasc, including the Finance section. The
claimants are currently carrying out interim assignments, in
common with all headquarters staff, pending implementation of
the Authority's decisions on the Management structure of the
new organisation.
2. In February the Labour Court in Recommendation No. 11672
dated February, 1988 concerning a claim by the L.G.P.S.U. for
the re-grading of clerical and administrative staff at
Regional Offices and Colleges within ACOT stated "Having
considered the submissions made by the Parties, the Court is
of the view that there is merit in the claim for the
establishment of a grading appeals mechanism. However, it
would seem more appropriate that such a mechanism should be
developed and agreed when the New Authority is in place."
3. In April, 1988 the U.P.T.C.S. referred a claim to the
Court on behalf of four Assistant Principal staff at ACOT
National Office (including the two present claimants) for
upgrading to Chief Agricultural Development Officer (CADO)
level. The Court in Recommendation No. 11838 stated "Having
considered the submissions made by the parties and since the
merger of the two bodies is imminent, the Court recommends
that any question of the re-grading of the four claimants
should await the establishment of the New Authority."
4. Prior to reviewing the staff and grading levels in
Teagasc, Management could not accept that the Civil Service
Professional Accountant Grade 1 scale is an appropriate
grading comparison for Finance staff in Teagasc. The Court in
Recommendation No. LCR 11783 concerning a claim by
approximately 380 clerical/administrative staff in R.T.E. for
a revised grading structure stated "Having considered the
submissions of the parties, the Court takes the view that
grading structures evolve within a particular Company in
response to the requirements of that Company and the Workers
directly concerned. Consequently, comparisons with grading
structures which have developed in the same manner in other
concerns do not provide a sound basis for a claim to change
the structure such as is before the Court." Management
considers that this is a relevant comparison.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted the Board's intention to submit to the Minister
for Agriculture and Food a proposed Programme/Structure by
mid-December. The Court considers that it is reasonable for the
claimants to expect that their grading should be clarified within
a reasonable period of time.
The Court in Recommendation No. 11672 has already recommended that
a grading appeals mechanism should be developed and agreed in the
new Authority. The Court now recommends that clarification of the
claimants' grading should be effected as soon as possible. Should
this not be done by 31st March next and if the grading appeals
mechanism is not in place at that time the Court will be prepared
to consider the claimants' case on its merits.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
21st December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.