Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88880 Case Number: LCR12214 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EOLAS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for regrading on behalf of three clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union's claim should be considered in
the context of an agreed job evaluation scheme which should be
negotiated as soon as possible. There should also be a re-grading
appeals mechanism established in the organisation to deal with any
disagreements arising.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88880 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12214
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EOLAS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for regrading on behalf of three clerical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 1st January, 1988 the National Board of Science and
Technology and the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards
were merged to form Eolas. In January, 1988 the Union submitted a
claim for the upgrading of the posts of four of its members (one
has since resigned) who had formerly worked in the N.B.S.T. Two
of the claimants work as service assistants (S.A.) and the third
as a services operator (S.O.). The Union claimed on their behalf
that they should be regraded to the Eolas C02 scale which is
equivalent to the clerical officer grade in the Civil Service.
The employees present salary scale is more or less equivalent to
the ex IIRS grade of COI which has parity with the clerical
assistant grade in the Civil Service. (Details of all salary
scales and grades Ex NBST and IIRS have been supplied to the
Court). The Union claims that prior to the setting up of Eolas
Management of NBST agreed to have the posts of the three employees
upgraded to the clerical officer grade in the Civil Service.
Management however rejects the claim stating that no such
commitment was given on the upgrading of jobs. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour court on the 22nd March, 1988.
A conciliation conference was held on the 14th November, 1988 but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 15th November,
1988. A Court hearing took place on the 21st December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three workers were formerly employed by the NBST, one
as a services operator, and two as services assistants. The
services operator worked in the Library and was party to a
claim for upgrading in 1984, which still has to be addressed.
In January, 1988, the Science and Technology Bill was passed
and she was employed in the Library of the new body Eolas.
The two services assistants were both employed as secretaries
in the NBST and were party to an upgrading claim in 1986. The
claim was made as a result of a grading review having been
carried out on the clerk secretary grade for the Management
Services unit of the public service. It was finally agreed
that clerk secretaries should be upgraded to the clerical
officer grade in the Civil Service. In December, 1987
Management of the NBST agreed at a meeting with the Union that
the outstanding upgrading claims should be paid. Management
involved in these meetings have since retired under the
voluntary early retirement scheme.
2. Since their employment with Eolas both employees have
carried out the duties of the CO2 grade and detailed accounts
of these duties have been supplied to the Court. The two
workers have been transferred from departments within Eolas
from January, 1988, demonstrating their flexibility and should
be remunerated for the work being carried out. All three
members were party to upgrading claims over a long period
which have yet to be dealt with, and appear to have fallen
victim to the creation of the new body Eolas. The new
Management does not seem to wish to take account of anything
which was said or agreed in the previous organisation. These
circumstances are totally outside the control of the members
and it is grossly unfair that the workers should be treated in
such a fashion.
3. Management are being very selective about the embargo on
promotions. This is instanced by the fact that at least two
employees, in recent weeks, were upgraded from C.O. 2 to C.O.
3 grade. These promotions do not appear to have been
advertised to other employees, but seemed to be granted
automatically. If Management states that all employees are
strictly subject to the embargo then how can they justify the
enactment of these promotions? However if they can, they
should concede these three upgradings based on the work being
done. The Union believes that the three employees are
carrying out the duties of the C.O. 2 grade and request that
Management concede the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The principal basis of the claim as stated by the Union in
their letter of 12th January, 1988 is that "the anomaly was
accepted by the management of NBST prior to the amalgamation."
If the NBST management had thought it appropriate to upgrade
these staff they would have taken it upon themselves to do so.
They would not simply have given a commitment to do so, after
the merger as alleged by the Union. In the event of the
impending merger they would have no authority to give such a
commitment and they did not do so. It would be a very unusual
arrangement if staff recruited to an eleven point scale (the
S.A. scale) were to be advanced as a matter of course to the
next scale after less than a year's service (the claim was
entered before the completion of one year's service by the two
S.A.'s involved in this claim). Such a process would render
the recruitment scale all but meaningless. Advancement to the
C.O. 2 scale has always been by promotion to a vacancy or
occasionally by upgrading as a result of higher duties and
responsibilities being undertaken.
2. Prior to the retirement of the Chief Executive and Head of
Personnel of NBST the latter was contacted by Management
regarding the alleged commitment on regrading. His reply
stated that it was made clear to the Union that because of the
impending merger the NBST management was not in a position to
make any commitment on the issue of regrading. However, in
the context of the integration of the grades of the two
agencies NBST indicated that it would be supportive of having
the NBST clerical assistant posts equated with the C.O. 2
grade in the IIRS, if the level of the duties and
responsibilities could be shown to be of a comparable nature.
The integration of the grades did not take place because of
differences in pay scales, superannuation and leave
arrangements.
3. The job lists for the three employees have been supplied
to the Court. In the case of the Services Operator, a letter
from her Head of Department in the Company clearly points out
that her job has always been at C.O.I. level. She was
employed in a temporary capacity in NBST from 1979 to 1982
when she was appointed to the permanent staff. At that time
her appointment was at S.A. grade. She appealed this and
requested the S.O. grade, and this was conceded. The analysis
of the various salary scales shows that she has , for much of
the time on that scale, fared better than she would have on
the C.O.I. scale (ex IIRS), although her duties are only of
C.O.I. grade. In the cases of the Services Assistants their
job descriptions show that their work is typical of the work
carried out by the C.O.I. grade in the operating Departments.
A long established and accepted arrangement in IIRS was (and
still in Eolas) that each Department or operating area would
have one C.O. 2 and one or more C.O. 1's depending on the
volume of work to be done. They share the work but the C.O. 2
is responsible to the Department Head for ensuring that all
the work requirements are met. A list of Departments showing
the clerical staff complement in each is attached for the
Court's information, and shows that the pattern in each
Department generally is one C.O. 2 with one or two C.O. 1's
depending on the volume of work. This is the pattern of
employment for the former IIRS grades. Since the Union have
sought to relate the NBST staff to this situation and since
this is the only commitment given by NBST management, then it
is clear that there are no grounds for the upgrading of ex
NBST staff.
4. No commitment by Management to upgrade jobs, as claimed by
the Union, was ever given, as the duties and responsibilities
of the three claimants do not warrant upgrading. Even if the
upgradings could be justified, Management is precluded from
implementing them because of the Government embargo on
promotions and upgradings. Apart from any other
consideration, the service of the two S.A. staff is very
short, under two years, and the granting of upgrading to them
would be cause for the twenty four ex IIRS staff in the C.O. 1
grade, all of whom have much longer service, to seek similar
treatment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union's claim should be considered in
the context of an agreed job evaluation scheme which should be
negotiated as soon as possible. There should also be a re-grading
appeals mechanism established in the organisation to deal with any
disagreements arising.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____________________
16th January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.