Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90379 Case Number: LCR12974 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of former ACOT professional staff for an improved career structure.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that Teagasc agree to appoint the I.P.A. to examine and
report on the Unions claim for the creation of additional posts by
way of an improved career structure for former ACOT professional
staff now employed in Teagasc.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90379 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12974
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEAGASC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of former ACOT professional
staff for an improved career structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. This organisation was established in 1988 following the merger
of ACOT and An Foras Taluntais (AFT). The grading structure of
the professional staff in the organisation is outlined at appendix
1. The Unions are claiming that additional promotional posts
should be created through an improved career structure for former
ACOT professional staff. Specifically the Unions are seeking a
similar number of posts for ADO's (agricultural development
officers) in the various grades as exist for former AFT
professional staff (RO's - research officers). The Unions
position is that the IPA should be commissioned to carry out a
study of the workers concerned in order to deal with the claim.
Management's position is that there is no basis for comparison
between the two grading structures. Agreement could not be
reached at local level and on 17th January, 1990 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 6th July, 1990 at which no
progress was made and on 9th July, 1990 the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 20th July, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An analysis of the existing structures of ADO and RO
grades clearly shows the discrepancy that exists as follows:-
- 93% of AFT Research Staff are at or above the CADO grade.
- 8% of ACOT Advisory/Teaching staff are at the CADO grade.
- 76% of ACOT Advisory/Training Staff are on the recruitment
grade.
- 7% of AFT Research Staff are on the recruitment grade.
- 68% of AFT Research Staff are above CADO grade.
3. 2. In 1983 a staff scheme was introduced for professional
grades in ACOT. This scheme detailed job descriptions for the
four ADO grades and covered all work areas in the
organisation. However, since 1983 the grading of staff has
only been reviewed in one work area, i.e. teaching. Following
a claim by UPTCS the Court in LCR No.10052 recommended the
appointment of an independent assessor and subsequently nearly
half of the twenty teaching posts in ACOT were upgraded. The
structure applying to former ACOT professional staff is
recognised by the employer as being inadequate. A 1983 JNC
Agreement recognised that there were serious and special
problems for former Department of Agriculture staff in ACOT
and management undertook within a reasonable time period to
resolve the problem through the provision of professional
opportunities for the staff. A joint union/management
sub-committee of J.N.C. in October, 1984 recommended an
improved structure and this was approved by the Board of ACOT
and subsequently endorsed by the new body (details supplied to
the Court). The sub-committee noted that the ratio of over
five basic grade posts to one post in the next grade is most
unfavourable compared with ratios elsewhere in the public
sector.
3. The workers have a less favourable career structure than
that which applies elsewhere in the public service (details
supplied to the Court). The incidence of these workers
undertaking higher duties is widespread and the value of the
contribution made to this organisation by former ACOT
professional staff is equal to that made by former AFT staff.
It is grossly inequitable that the present imbalance in career
structures and promotion opportunities should continue. The
Unions totally reject any attempt to merge or integrate the
two separate professional structures without addressing the
issue of improved career structures and promotions for former
ACOT staff. To do otherwise would merely superimpose former
AFT higher level posts over the lower former ACOT grades.
Management has now proposed an 'open' promotion system to take
effect from January 1991, while this is acceptable in
principle it can only follow a satisfactory settlement to this
claim. In order to bring about an integration of former ACOT
and AFT administrative structures, the IPA was commissioned to
complete a study, which was subsequently accepted by all
concerned. A similar study should now be carried out by the
IPA to deal with this claim.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The research structure has existed since the 1950's, while
the advisory structure was established seven years ago in the
context of the staff scheme for ADO grades (details supplied
to the Court). While an honours degree is required for entry
to the research grades, a pass degree only is required for
entry to the ADO grades. A substantial number of research
staff have a higher qualification on entry. The staff scheme
determined the appropriate grading structures for staff in the
ADO grades and provided for maximum mobility in job assignment
and the operation of flexible work systems. The staff scheme
provided for a 17.4% pay increase, 7.4% of which was in
respect of such productivity arrangements. At the time of the
staff scheme it was accepted by all sides that advisory work
would only be carried out by staff at ADO or HADO level and
management jobs would be performed by staff at SADO and CADO
level. A small number of specialist staff were appointed in
each region at all levels from ADO to CADO to support advisory
staff in the field.
2. There is no basis for comparison between the two distinct
grading structures in question. In AFT, research staff were
generally promoted, in situ, on the basis of merit. This
reflected their growing national and international reputation
in their field and managers of research departments could be
at a lower or equivalent level than members of their staff.
The work of research staff is unique in nature. Promotion is
on the basis of scientific reputation and acknowledged
expertise rather than the value of work actually performed at
any moment in time. It would be illogical to grade advisory
staff on a similar basis to research staff as the nature of
their work and the criteria for determining its value is
completely different. There have been few promotional
competitions for ADO grades since 1986 and few promotions of
research staff, but despite this eight ADO staff have recently
been promoted to HADO and the organisation has offered to
promote eleven advisory staff to CADO level. There have been
no promotions of research staff in recent times.
3. The claim has serious cost implications and the
organisation is heavily indebted to the banks at the present
time and must balance its annual budget. This has forced the
organisation to engage in a stringent programme of ongoing
cost reductions and the additional cost would be an impossible
burden. In addition, concession of this claim could have
serious consequential effects elsewhere in the public service.
The ADO grade is linked to the Assistant Agricultural
Inspector grade in the Department of Agriculture and Food for
pay purposes which in turn is linked to the civil service
common professional recruitment scale. At present
considerable changes are being contemplated in the delivery of
advisory services by the organisation. An Advisory Task Force
has been established which will be making its final report to
the Authority in the near future. It is only when these
significant changes have been implemented and are in place for
a minimum of a year that the organisation would be prepared to
consider the appropriateness of the grading of certain
advisory staff, if it felt such a step was warranted. In all
the circumstances, the appointment of an assessor to examine
the claim is not appropriate and the claim for parity with
former AFT research staff should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that Teagasc agree to appoint the I.P.A. to examine and
report on the Unions claim for the creation of additional posts by
way of an improved career structure for former ACOT professional
staff now employed in Teagasc.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___9th___August,___1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX I
_________________________________________________________________
| |
| AFT ACOT |
|_______________________________________________________________|
| | | | | | |
| Grade | Staff | *Maximum Point| Grade | Staff| Maximum Point|
| | Number | Salary Scale | |Number| Salary Scale |
| | | as at 1/1/90 | | | as at 1/1/90 |
| | | (#) | | | (#) |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| SPRO | 19 | 32,959 | --- | --- | ---- |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| PRO | 70 | 30,272 | --- | --- | ---- |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| SRO | 49 | 27,807 | CADO | 38 | 27,870 |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | ---- | SADO | 28 | 25,392 |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | ---- | HADO | 47 | 23,552 |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| RO | 10 | 21,074 | ADO I | 308 | 21,122 |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| ___ | --- | ---- | ADO II | 34 | 16,922 |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
| | | | | | |
| TOTAL | 148 | | TOTAL | 455 | |
|_______|________|_______________|________|______|______________|
* AFT Maximum salary scales have been adjusted for
superannuation to allow for direct comparison with ACOT
scales.