Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89623 Case Number: LCR12615 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CERT - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the appointment of an agency to conduct a job evaluation exercise.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the Job Evaluation exercise should be carried out by
I.P.C. as originally agreed between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89623 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12615
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CERT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the appointment of an agency to conduct a
job evaluation exercise.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1981 following an IPC job evaluation exercise, agreement
was reached between the Company and Union establishing
relativities between the grades of Manager and Head of Division
with certain grades in FAS. In 1986 the findings of an
independent report commissioned by the Company showed that the
relativities had been broken. In January, 1987 (and formally in
November, 1987) the Union served a claim for the restoration of
pay parity on behalf of six managers and two heads of divisions.
During 1988 the matter was discussed both locally and at
conciliation and it was subsequently agreed by both parties that
the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) would be engaged to carry out
a job evaluation exercise. However, in 1989 the Company informed
the Union that the Departments of Labour and Finance considered
that the Management Services Unit (MSU) of the Department of
Finance would be the most appropriate body to carry out the
evaluation. This was unacceptable to the Union and on 16th June,
1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 28th August,
1989 at which no progress was made and on 8th September, 1989 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 13th
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. It is widely acknowledged that IPC is the appropriate body
to undertake studies of this kind. This is particularly
relevant in this case as it was the IPC who carried out the
report that established the original relativities, which were
formally approved by the relevant government departments. It
was the Company and the Department of Labour which proposed
that a job evaluation exercise be carried out by the IPC. It
is therefore extraordinary considering this and the fact that
the Company and Union had already agreed that the IPC would
carry out the exercise, that the Department of Labour now
appears to have no confidence in IPC. The Union has no
confidence in the objectivity of the MSU of the Department of
Finance. The proposal to avail of their services rather than
the IPC's is equivalent to the Union suggesting that its
Industrial Engineering Department should carry out this task.
The IPC should carry out the evaluation as agreed previously.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was advised by the Departments of Labour and
Finance that the MSU of the Department of Finance was the most
appropriate body to carry out the evaluation, for a number of
reasons. At the time of the submission of the original report
the MSU was not available and therefore the IPC was proposed.
It is a better utilisation of state resources to use those
resources available in the Department of Finance. In
addition, the MSU is more familiar with the State sector, this
is an important factor due to the fact that the changes
involved have a public sector dimension. Management is not
rejecting the IPC but by using the MSU it would be making the
most efficient use of State resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the Job Evaluation exercise should be carried out by
I.P.C. as originally agreed between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___1st__November,__1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman