Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87913 Case Number: LCR11685 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of seven Regional Fishery Managers for upgrading from the Civil Service Assistant Principal Officer scale to the Principal Officer scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Board agree to the introduction
of the IPC or other qualified body to assess the jobs in question
and thereafter proceed with its statutory obligation to introduce
a Staff Scheme for the grade concerned, not later than six months
from the date of issue of this recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87913 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11685
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of seven Regional Fishery Managers for
upgrading from the Civil Service Assistant Principal Officer scale
to the Principal Officer scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Fisheries Act, 1980, established the Central Fisheries
Board and the seven Regional Fisheries Boards. Each Regional
Board is managed by a Regional Manager who is graded at Assistant
Principal Officer level. Section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1980,
placed an obligation on the Central Fisheries Board to provide a
staff scheme which would have included the issue of grading.
When, by mid-1987, no draft had been produced on such a scheme,
the Union decided to pursue the issue of grading on its own and on
the 10th August, 1987, it referred the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on the 20th October at which the conciliation officer proposed
that an assessment of the claim be carried out by a competent
outside body. The Union was agreeable to this but the Board
requested time to seek clearance for the financial input from the
Department of the Marine. In November, the Board informed the
Union and the IRO that it was unable to obtain the finances for
such an assessment and on the 27th November the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 25th January, 1988 (earliest
possible date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The salary for the post of Regional Fishery Manager was
unilaterally linked to the grade of Assistant Principal
Officer in the Civil Service. This grading was never agreed
nor was it based on any proper job evaluation. It was purely
arbitrary.
2. According to the Local Appointments Commission, the
duties of the post are "to act as Regional Fisheries Manager
under the Regional Fisheries Board and to perform such duties
as may be assigned to the Regional Fisheries Manager by that
Board for the purpose of implementing the functions of the
Board". This, in itself, is a very wide ranging definition of
duties and could result in the Regional Manager being given an
extremely high level of work if the Board so decides. In
other words, there is no upper limit on the level of work
which the Manager may be instructed to undertake (full details
of duties supplied to the Court).
3. The title of Regional Fisheries Manager is misleading as
he is much more than a manager and is, in fact, a combination
of Manager, Chief Executive, General Secretary and Director
General. The term "Manager" implies simply getting things
done using staff and resources but the role is much broader
than that (details supplied to the Court).
4. The Regional Manager has full responsibility for the
financial affairs of the Board. This involves the preparation
of estimates, making of recommendations for the distribution
of non-pay expenditure, day to day control of revenue (licence
fees, rates, gear, etc.) and expenditure, responsibility for
accounting and financial procedures. (The Boards' budgets in
1987 varied between #570,000 and #781,000). He must also
advise the Board in relation to the striking of fishery rates.
5. The Regional Manager's role is a multi-disciplinary one.
In effect, he is a Manager, Personnel Officer, Financial
Controller, Law Enforcer, Executive, Administrator, Advisor
and Director. He must have a detailed knowledge, not only of
these subjects, but also of complex fisheries legislation. He
must be well versed in the biology of fish, matters pertaining
to water pollution, fisheries development techniques and
public relations. The Regional Fisheries Manager is not only
a manager of fisheries, but, more importantly, he is Chief
Executive of a statutory body which is charged with a broad
and demanding brief.
6. An examination of other Regional Manager posts in the
public service shows that the salaries for these posts are
either the very same as that for the Civil Service Principal
Officer, or else approximate to it (details supplied to the
Court).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This claim, while presented as a regrading claim amounts
to a pay claim; it covers all the posts concerned. The claim
is for a new pay relativity which would result in a 22% pay
increase. Since the inception of the boards, the pay of the
Regional Fisheries Boards Managers is at parity with the civil
service Assistant Principal. In accepting, in 1986, the
application of the Assistant Principal increase currently
being implemented on a phased basis, the Regional Fisheries
Board Managers accepted this pay relationship.
4. 2. The grade of Assistant Principal exists widely in the
Public Service. In the civil service, no job description has
been laid down for the grade, because of the great range and
diversity of the duties carried out by this grade. In some
areas, e.g. Department of Social Welfare and Revenue, some
Assistant Principals manage in excess of 100 staff, in others,
they are professional staff with specialist duties, and in yet
others, they advise Ministers, research and prepare draft
legislation, and monitor and control expenditure. They advise
state bodies on Government policy, on industrial relations
matters and in the preparation of estimates. A job
description covering the grade as a whole simply would not be
possible.
3. The existing grading of the Fisheries Board Managers is
correct and compares satisfactorily with grading elsewhere in
the Public Service. The highest grade reporting to the
Fisheries Boards Managers is the Inspector, the Manager has a
differential of 54.6% over this grade. The Managers at
present are on a salary scale of #18,536 - #22002, as against
the Inspectors' rate of #9,453 - #14,232. This differential
will, in fact, increase from 1st July, 1988, when the final
phase of the 15% pay increase to Assistant Principals is paid.
In the case of the Central Board, the minimum point of the
Chief Executive's scale is overlapped by the maximum point of
the Research Officer's scale. The respective scales are
#18,810 - #24,804, as against #24,494 - #27,174. It is clear,
therefore, that there is a major difference in the level of
the reporting staff as between the Central Fisheries Board
Chief Executive and the Regional Board Managers, which
reflects the different nature and level of work being carried
out in the Central Board and fully justifies the grading
differential which exists between these posts. The Chief
Executive of the Central Board has a rate of pay set at Band 5
of the rates recommended in Report 20 of the Review Body on
Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. The Regional
Fisheries Boards Managers are on a pay scale aligned with
Assistant Principal. The Managers of the Regional Boards are
receiving the phased 15% increase applicable to civil service
Assistant Principals, but the Chief Executive has not
benefitted by such special increases.
4. The job description submitted by the Union covers every
duty and role of the Fisheries Boards. It almost entirely
ignores the contribution of the Central Board in
co-ordinating, in directing, and in providing central
professional services. It is repetitious in that it describes
the same duties under different headings, in some cases
several times. It also largely ignores the policy role of the
Department of the Marine. It makes no attempt to quantify the
time involved or the relative importance of the functions
performed. It attributes to the Manager functions and tasks
which are, for the most part, carried out by the subordinate
staff, either at clerical level or by inspectors. Much of
this work is of a clear-cut, routine nature which can be
carried out without ongoing reference to the Manager. On
occasion, one Manager has managed two boards, and at the
outset, Assistant Principals from the Department of Fisheries
and Forestry managed Boards while continuing to carry out work
in the Department. The job description also fails to
recognise adequately the role and responsibility of the
Boards, who in fact delegate specific tasks to the Managers.
All other non-delegated matters are reserved by the Boards.
The extent to which tasks are delegated to individual Managers
varies from one region to another.
5. There is at present an embargo on the filling of posts
in the public service. This arises from the need to reduce
public expenditure and is referred to in Section II paragraph
11 of the Programme for National Recovery. The upgrading of
any post would entail the creation of higher posts at a time
when, in many areas of the public service, early retirement
terms are being offered in order to reduce staff numbers.
This is particularly the case in the Boards where the need to
reduce staff in order to meet budgetary targets has been
clearly identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Board agree to the introduction
of the IPC or other qualified body to assess the jobs in question
and thereafter proceed with its statutory obligation to introduce
a Staff Scheme for the grade concerned, not later than six months
from the date of issue of this recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
12th February, 1988 -----------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman