Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90165 Case Number: LCR12893 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEAGASC - and - UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS |
Dispute concerning the assimilation of two workers to a higher pay scale following regrading.
Recommendation:
8. Further to the Court's recommendation No. 12432 of 7th June,
1989 and its clarification of 16th March, 1990 and having regard
to the protracted delay in reaching a resolution of the claim the
Court recommends that, in full and final settlement of the claim,
the claimants be placed on the maximum of the scale for Civil
Service Professional Accountant Grade 1 with effect from a current
date and that each be paid in addition a lump sum of #4,500.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90165 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEAGASC
AND
UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the assimilation of two workers to a higher
pay scale following regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988 the Union formally served a claim for regrading on
behalf of a Financial Accountant and a Management Accountant.
Both workers have been employed by the organisation (ACOT) in
these capacities since March, 1981, and have been graded at
Assistant Principal level. Teagasc was established in September,
1988 following the merger of An Foras Taluntais (AFT) and ACOT.
The Union claimed that the workers should be graded as
Professional Accountant, Grade 1. The current salary scale for
the grade of Assistant Principal ranges from #19,280 to #22,862
per annum and that for Professional Accountants, Grade I from
#23,431 to #27,075. The Labour Court subsequently investigated
the matter under Section 20(1) of the Industrial relations Act,
1969 and issued the following recommendation-
"The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, has noted the Board's intention to submit to the
Minister for Agriculture and Food a proposed
Programme/Structure by mid-December. The Court considers
that it is reasonable for the claimants to expect that
their grading should be clarified within a reasonable
period of time.
The Court in Recommendation No. 11672 has already
recommended that a grading appeals mechanism should be
developed and agreed in the new Authority. The Court now
recommends that clarification of the claimants' grading
should be effected as soon as possible. Should this not
be done by 31st March next and if the grading appeals
mechanism is not in place at that time the Court will be
prepared to consider the claimants' case on its merits."
(LCR No. 12187 of 21st December, 1988 refers.)
3. The matter was subsequently referred back to the Court again
and the Court's second recommendation was as follows:-
"Having considered the further submissions made by the
parties, the Court recommends concession of the claim
with effect from 1st June, 1989"
(LCR No. 12432 of 7th June, 1989 refers).
4. As no progress was made on implementing the recommendation,
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 12th March, 1990.
Management's position was that it agreed to implement the
recommendation on the basis that the standard civil service
promotional mechanism would be used for placing the workers on the
higher scale. Also, that there is at least one senior post in the
Finance Division surplus to requirements and that it would be
necessary to deploy one staff member from the Division to another
assignment. (The Union maintains that this condition was
withdrawn unconditionally at local level discussions). The
mechanism for determining starting point on promotion is that a
worker is placed on the minimum of the scale or at a point
equivalent to an officer's existing pay scale, plus accrued
increment, if any, together with an increment on the new scale
whichever is the greater. Where a worker has been on the maximum
of the scale for at least three years s/he will enter the new
scale either at the minimum or at a point equivalent to existing
pay plus two increments on the new scale, whichever is the
greater. The Union's position was that the workers should
transfer from the maximum point of their scale, which they are
presently on, to the maximum point of the Professional Accountant
Grade 1 scale. On 13th March, 1990 the Union wrote to the Court
seeking clarification of the Court's intentions regarding the
method of regrading the claimants. The Court responded on 16th
March, 1990 as follows:
"taking into account the background of this case and
bearing in mind the wording of the Court's Recommendation
i.e. concession of the Union's claim, the claimants
should be regraded - and they should be paid according to
practice in the organisation on regrading jobs."
5. The parties could not reach agreement on the 'practice in the
organisation on regrading jobs' and a further conciliation
conference was held on 14th April, 1990. The Union position is
that the practice in ACOT is the one of relevance and that this
was one of assimilation to the higher pay scales on the basis of
corresponding points. Management's position is that in AFT the
promotional mechanism was used and in ACOT the promotional
mechanism was used in one case and in the other case of regrading
of technician posts the workers were assimilated to the higher
scales on the basis of corresponding points, but this only as an
exceptional measure. No agreement could be reached and on 5th
April, 1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 3rd May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. No practice on pay following regrading has yet been
established in this organisation. The promotion procedure
used in AFT is therefore irrelevant, unless one is making the
point that this procedure was based, which it was, on equity
(details supplied to the Court). These workers transferred
from ACOT and the Act which established this organisation
guaranteed such workers against any worsening of conditions.
Therefore it is the practice which operated in ACOT in such
cases which is relevant, particularly as this claim
originated in ACOT. Regrading occurred on a wide scale in
ACOT following the introduction of its statutory staff
schemes. The basic reason for such regradings was a demand by
the Board of ACOT for new productivity from the staff of the
new organisation and new higher pay scales corresponding to
the new higher grades were accordingly introduced (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The parties to the agreements incorporating the staff
schemes brought to the negotiations an implicit understanding
that problems in relation to the regradings then being
considered, would be resolved on the basis of what was fair
and reasonable. In the case of the new staff scheme grades
the general rule was that assimilation to the higher scales
would be on the basis of corresponding points. Difficult
cases such as the technicians and exceptions to the rule were
dealt with in an equitable manner (details supplied to the
Court). In this case, all the workers want is the same
equitable treatment. In 1984, ACOT made proposals for a
statutory staff scheme for management grades. These proposals
envisaged the regrading of the workers concerned here and
therefore the workers did not pursue a claim for proper
grading. If the proposals had not been put into abeyance, it
is reasonable to expect that the workers would have been moved
onto the new pay scale on the basis of corresponding points.
3. A relevant practice based on equity exists. The workers
were recruited as experienced qualified accountants and
provided full professional services from the outset of their
employment but have been underpaid since they joined ACOT in
March, 1981. If they had been placed in the proper grade at
the time they started work in ACOT, they would have reached
the top of the pay scale on 1st April, 1983. In this case
equity is best expressed by assimilating the workers to the
new pay scales on the basis of corresponding points and to pay
them from 1st June, 1989 on any basis other than at the top of
the pay scale would mean that they would continue to be
underpaid up to 1st April, 1993.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. In AFT, in all cases of regrading the promotional
mechanism was used. In ACOT there were two cases involving
the regrading of workers. A librarian post was upgraded by
using the promotional mechanism, and in the other case
relating to the re-grading of technician posts the workers
concerned were assimilated as an exceptional measure to the
higher scales on the basis of corresponding points. This
followed a joint evaluation exercise conducted by ACOT, UPTCS
and the Irish Productivity Centre. In its letter of 12th
November, 1986 ACOT indicated to the Union that in relation to
the proposed upgradings of permanent staff assimilation to the
higher scales would be on the basis of corresponding points
and that this was an exceptional measure in the context of
finalising the staff scheme. The Union accepted ACOT's
proposals in letters of 4th and 9th December, 1986 (details
supplied to the Court).
2. In support of its current claim, the Union has cited two
cases where workers in ACOT were placed on different grades.
The first of these was a staff scheme for agricultural
development officer grades which was agreed with the UPTCS and
the Irish Agricultural Advisers Organisation in 1983. This
involved the incorporation into a new 4 grade salary structure
of 4 grades of Instructor/Managerial staff formerly employed
by County Committees of Agriculture and 2 grades of Assistant
Agricultural Inspector/Agricultural Inspector formerly
employed by the Department of Agriculture. This was not a
regrading exercise as a result of a grading evaluation of the
posts concerned, but was a realignment of the salary scales
attaching to the pre-staff scheme grades with the scales
attaching to the new grades. The second case involved the
incorporation of an engineer/architect into the staff scheme
for agricultural development officer grades. As with former
County Committee of Agriculture and Department of Agriculture
staff, this was a realignment of the engineer/architect scale
with that of chief agricultural development officer and did
not arise as a result of a grading evaluation of the engineer
architect post.
3. Management's proposal in this case is in accordance with
the practice in both ACOT and AFT on regrading posts. The
procedure adopted in the case of ACOT technicians was an
exceptional measure and in all other cases within ACOT and AFT
the starting pay on promotion method was used. The
introduction into the organisation of a practice of
assimilating staff to a higher grade on the basis of
corresponding points could have serious financial
consequences. Management's proposal for the regrading of the
two workers concerned in this case should be endorsed.