Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89880 Case Number: LCR12794 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AGENCY FOR PERSONAL SERVICES OVERSEAS (A.P.S.O.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning alleged diminution of responsibilities of a worker following his return from special leave of absence.
Recommendation:
6. A major re-organisation of the Agency occurred as an on-going
development of its services during the period of the claimant's
absence overseas. It was understandable that he would be
concerned as to the effect these changes would have on his own
position following his return after three and a half years' on
leave of absence.
After careful consideration of the submissions and arguments made
to it the Court is satisfied that the Agency has fulfilled its
written commitment to the claimant. The Court considers that the
best way forward for the claimant would be to accept the offer
made by the Agency in the first instance on the understanding that
when the post of Programme Manager/Deputy Chief Executive is being
filled on a permanent basis, all his previous experience be taken
into account.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89880 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AGENCY FOR PERSONAL SERVICES OVERSEAS (A.P.S.O.)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged diminution of responsibilities of a
worker following his return from special leave of absence.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Agency was established in 1974 to promote and sponsor
temporary personal service overseas in developing countries. It
is funded through the Department of Foreign Affairs and is part of
Ireland's Bilateral Assistance Programme.
In 1985, the worker concerned, who held the post of Programme
Officer, applied for special leave of absence to work in Tanzania
as a Planning Adviser. In a letter dated the 27th November, 1985,
the Agency confirmed its agreement in principle to his request and
went on to advise:-
"While we have advertised the Programme Officer vacancy
on temporary terms, in such a way that there should again
be a vacancy there when you return, we would at this
point wish not to guarantee you return to that specific
post - although that might well happen: you would,
however, be guaranteed a post of similar level of
responsibility, grade and remuneration."
The claimant subsequently took special leave of absence in March,
1986 and later that month a replacement was secured for his post
on a contract basis.
3. In August, 1987, a new staffing structure was put into place
and the position of Programme Officer became Programme
Manager/Deputy Chief Executive. In early 1989 the then Chief
Executive took up a new post in Geneva and the worker who replaced
the claimant in 1986 was appointed Acting Chief Executive for two
years. Another worker was appointed to the post of Programme
Manager/Deputy Chief Executive on an acting basis. When the
claimant eventually returned from his leave of absence in
September, 1989, he was assigned to the post of Senior Projects
Officer which the Agency argue is equal in the level of
responsibilities as the post of Programme Officer, which he held
prior to taking leave of absence. The worker does not accept this
and only agreed to his new assignment under protest. The Union,
on his behalf, claim that his new post cannot be considered to be
a post of similar grade and responsibility to that of his former
post and that the Agency has reneged on the commitment made to him
in 1985. In the absence of agreement at local level, the dispute
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 1st September, 1989. A conciliation conference on the 29th
November, 1989, failed to resolve the dispute and the case was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 25th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The post of Senior Projects Officer, to which the claimant
was assigned on his return to A.P.S.O. on the 11th September,
1989, is not a similar post nor could it be considered to be a
post of similar grade and responsibility to that of Programme
Officer (now Programme Manager/Deputy Chief Executive) from
which he got special leave of absence in March, 1986 (details
supplied to the Court).
2. There is no reason why he should not have been returned to
his former post, which was in fact the Board's intention
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The creation of the post of Senior Projects Officer and
the unilateral filling of this post, is in breach of the
A.P.S.O./S.I.P.T.U. Agreement. A senior post of this nature
should have been advertised and open to competition.
Furthermore the creation of this post and the fact that the
post of Programme Manager/Deputy Chief Executive is a senior
post would be against the embargo on employment, as per the
Government directive.
4. When the post of Senior Projects Officer is held up to
examination it transpires to be substantially that of Projects
Officer the position held by the worker, who is temporarily
acting as Programme Manager/Deputy Chief Executive, by Union
consent.
5. In July, 1988, the then Chief Executive advised the
claimant that he would be visiting him to discuss the many
changes which had taken place and to advise him of the need to
become familiar with computer changes which had also taken
place. He subsequently spoke to the claimant regarding his
return to the Agency as Programme Manager, in September, 1989.
This was further confirmed by the 3 year plan of the Agency.
Section 3.1. of that document specifically referred to the
claimant's return as Programme Manager.
4. 6. His former post of Programme Officer was much more
responsible than his present job in that it involved him in
management decisions and spending 65% of the #2.3 million
budget. Furthermore, he attended Executive and Council
meetings which he does not now do. These points alone
demonstrate that the job of Senior Projects Officer falls far
short in responsibility and grade to that of Programme
Manager/Deputy Chief Executive.
7. Whoever holds the post of Programme Manager/Deputy Chief
Executive would have to be seriously considered if a vacancy
arose in the future for the post of Chief Executive and all
the more so if the applicant was a permanent employee of such
practical experience as the claimant.
8. The Court is requested to conclude that the claimant's
present position of Senior Projects Officer is not a job
similar in grade and responsibility to that of Programme
Manager/Deputy Chief Executive and that there is no reason why
the claimant should not be returned to his rightful post of
Programme Manager/Deputy Chief Executive, because that post is
still vacant.
AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The central issue is whether there are similar levels of
responsibility attaching to the old post of Programme Officer
and the new post of Senior Projects Officer. The Agency is
operating in a difficult and challenging environment. It was
found necessary, in 1987, to radically adjust the staff
structure to respond to changing circumstances. In 1989 the
Agency felt that a further refinement in the staff structure
was required to provide APSO with what it considers to be an
essential high level capacity in areas of research, planning
and implementation. The post of Senior Projects Officer was
created to meet this need.
2. The post of Senior Projects Officer is a senior staff
position, reporting directly to and working closely with, the
Chief Executive. This reflects the importance which the
Agency attaches to the functions ascribed to the post (full
details of functions supplied to the Court).
3. As Programme Officer, the claimant, along with a number of
other staff, attended APSO Council and Executive Committee
meetings. This structure was abolished by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs and an eleven member Board of Directors was
appointed in 1986. Because of the smaller size of this body,
the Board of Directors decided that it wished to limit staff
involvement and to maximise the contribution of Board members.
The Chief Executive and Secretary to the Agency are the only
staff members who retain right of attendance at Board
meetings. The Board, some time ago, decided that it wished
the Programme Manager to attend also. The position of the
Agency is that attendance at Board meetings by staff (other
than the Chief Executive and Secretary) is a decision
exclusively for the Board and must remain so. The Board will
decide, from time to time, how to exercise its judgement in
that matter.
5. 4. As Programme Officer, the claimant administered the
overseas funding budget which took up approximately 60% of the
Agency's overall budget. However, the responsibility was of
an administrative nature, with the decision making element
being extremely limited. Contingency payments are now made as
a matter of course by the Projects Officers and the approach
of the Agency to financial and funding matters is now quite
different to when the claimant went on leave of absence
(details supplied to the Court).
5. The Agency is satisfied that it has honoured its
commitment given to the claimant in 1985, that he would return
to a post of similar responsibility, grade and remuneration as
the post he held prior to taking leave of absence.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. A major re-organisation of the Agency occurred as an on-going
development of its services during the period of the claimant's
absence overseas. It was understandable that he would be
concerned as to the effect these changes would have on his own
position following his return after three and a half years' on
leave of absence.
After careful consideration of the submissions and arguments made
to it the Court is satisfied that the Agency has fulfilled its
written commitment to the claimant. The Court considers that the
best way forward for the claimant would be to accept the offer
made by the Agency in the first instance on the understanding that
when the post of Programme Manager/Deputy Chief Executive is being
filled on a permanent basis, all his previous experience be taken
into account.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__29th__March,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman