Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88840 Case Number: LCR12192 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FAS - and - PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION |
Payment of an allowance to Occupation Guidance Officers.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that, insofar as scales for Occupational
Guidance Officers and Placement Officers were independently
established, no differential or allowances as such existed between
the salary levels. The Court is further satisfied that the
establishment of the OGO's and certain PO's salary levels at that
of HEO was as a result of a relatively greater extension of the
range of certain PO's work which warranted the regrading.
The Court, for these reasons, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88840 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12192
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FAS
and
PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Payment of an allowance to Occupation Guidance Officers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since July, 1986 the posts of Placement Officer (PO) and
Occupational Guidance Officer (OGO) have been graded as Higher
Executive Officer (HEO) posts. The Union brought a case through
the Civil Service conciliation and arbitration machinery for the
restoration of the differential which had existed between the
OGO's (who had held the salary scale of HEO prior to regrading)
and the PO's. The claim was rejected at Departmental Council
level.
3. Following the establishment of FAS the claim was again raised
at local level. No settlement could be reached at local level
discussions and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 20th October, 1988 and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
on 2nd December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Guidance Service has always been a highly
specialised back-up service to that provided by the PO grade
and requires specialised qualifications and skills over and
above these required of PO's. From the establishment of the
grade of OGO the maximum point of the salary scale was 6.4%
higher than that paid to PO's. OGO's were recruited by
promotion from the PO grade following a competition. Also
OGO's are required to successfully complete an appropriate
course of studies leading to the award of a third level
diploma in guidance and counselling.
2. The regrading of both OGO and PO to HEO did not result
in any increase in salary for OGO's but did result in the
erosion of the differential which had traditionally existed
between the two grades.
3. The report of the mediator which resulted in the
regrading and all discussions on this claim at Departmental
Council and mediation centred around the role of the PO. The
Union suggested that OGO's be graded at Assistant Principal
level, recognising the fact that the proposal to grade OGO's
and PO's did not take account of the salary differential.
However, in order to resolve the matter the Union was prepared
to have the two grades regraded as HEO's while reserving the
right to subsequently pursue a claim on behalf of OGO's for an
allowance in the nature of pay.
4. In addition to the fact that the specialist
qualifications and skills of OGO's are no longer recognised by
the salary structure, the change in the nature and range of
duties performed by the OGO grade since the grade was
established must be taken into account (details supplied to
the Court). The OGO's role has expanded with the growth in
state provided training schemes, all of which the OGO must be
familiar with. The change in the range and nature of
activities of the National Manpower Service has been
recognised by awards to Regional Directors, Assistant Regional
Directors and Placement Officers. OGO's who have participated
as much as the fore-mentioned in this changed situation are
alone in not having their contribution recognised.
5. From time to time, in addition to guidance duties, OGO's
have been employed as acting managers which is itself a
recognition by management of their unique role.
6. The lack of concrete recognition of the contribution
made by OGO's in the development of the National Manpower
Service and the fact that specific recognition of the advanced
and more specialised skills no longer exists has resulted in a
deep-rooted sense of grievance on the part of OGO's. This
grievance can be resolved by some salary differentiation
between those on OGO work and those on PO work.
7. OGO's are experienced and qualified to undertake all
duties normally carried out by PO's, having been promoted from
that grade. However, PO's are not in a position to
interchange with OGO's due to the specialist nature of
guidance and counselling work and the specialist
qualifications required. This higher level of skill and
responsibility is felt by the Union to be worthy of the
recognition sought.
8. Given the small number of workers involved in this case
and the arguments presented, the Union views it as unfortunate
that the official side could not see its way to make an offer
at conciliation.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union has attempted to justify a claim for the
payment of an allowance to OGO's using two separate and
unrelated arguments. Management does not accept that the
difference which previously existed between the salary scales
of these two groups was based on an allowance being paid to
OGO's, or on a differential being maintained between them and
the PO's. Neither is it accepted that there is any case for
the payment of an allowance because of the nature of the job.
2. The salary scales for PO and OGO were established
independently the scales were not related and a differential
or allowance never existed (details supplied to the Court).
3. OGO's still carry out the basic functions of counselling
and career guidance for which the grade was established and
Management is satisfied that they are correctly graded at HEO
level.
4. In relation to OGO's, the mediator appointed in 1985 to
deal with a long-outstanding claim by PO's did not recommend
any change in salary level or the payment of any allowance but
did recommend that they be regraded to HEO grade. He further
recommended that, subject to the possession of suitable
qualifications and experience, there should be full
interchangeability between placement and guidance duties. It
is clear from his report that the mediator was satisfied that
the OGO's were correctly graded at HEO level relative to their
duties and responsibilities and that there were no grounds for
the payment of an allowance. The Union, in their submission
to the mediator in 1985 suggested that this outcome was the
minimum they might expect.
5. All jobs change over an extended period but change of
itself does not justify higher levels of payment. Changes
which may have affected the OGO's work would have resulted
mainly from the need to respond to the changing
employment/unemployment situation and affected other groups
just as much as the OGO's. Such changes did not significantly
alter the basic role of the OGO which is to provide
counselling and career guidance to those in need of such
services.
6. The work of OGO's is no more specialised than that of
many other groups at HEO level who do not enjoy special
allowances.
7. Although there are only a maximum of eight workers
involved, concession of this claim would have major
implications for grading structures in FAS.
8. The main reason why this claim has been brought is
simply that prior to the mediator's recommendations in 1986,
OGO's enjoyed a higher level of salary than POs. They now
want to restore that position despite the mediator's findings
that serving PO's be upgraded to HEO and a new level of PO at
Executive Officer grade be established.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that, insofar as scales for Occupational
Guidance Officers and Placement Officers were independently
established, no differential or allowances as such existed between
the salary levels. The Court is further satisfied that the
establishment of the OGO's and certain PO's salary levels at that
of HEO was as a result of a relatively greater extension of the
range of certain PO's work which warranted the regrading.
The Court, for these reasons, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
22nd December, 1988 ----------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman