Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9059 Case Number: LCR12887 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
In view of an alleged undertaking given to a worker by the then head of personnel, the Union's claim is that the worker should be appointed clerical officer grade 1 and be paid retrospectively for the earnings lost.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the evidence submitted by both parties the
Court is of the view that the dispute arose from a
misunderstanding by the claimant of her position. The Court
accordingly upholds the Commissioners' position. Whilst rejecting
the claim the Court considers that in the special circumstances of
the case the Commissioners should in this instance sympathetically
consider waiving the proficiency requirement in shorthand and
allow the claimant to progress up the Grade I salary scale from a
current date.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9059 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12887
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. In view of an alleged undertaking given to a worker by the
then head of personnel, the Union's claim is that the worker
should be appointed clerical officer grade 1 and be paid
retrospectively for the earnings lost.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Commissioners of Irish Lights who are a statutory body,
are the General Lighthouse Authority for Ireland and are
responsible for maintaining aids to navigation around the coast of
Ireland.
3. A total of 11 clerical and 15 secretarial staff are employed
between the Commissioners' Head Office and Lighthouse Depots. The
worker here concerned was employed initially in 1967 as an
accounting machine operator in the Lighthouse Depot and when that
post was discontinued in 1970, she was redeployed in a typing
capacity as a clerical assistant at the same location. In 1977
the Commissioners and the Union entered into discussions to revise
the clerical and secretarial structures to allow for better
promotional opportunities for those in the secretarial grade
(details supplied to the Court). Prior to the discussions the
secretarial staff consisted of two grades, clerical assistant
(entry grade) and clerical officer (secretarial). The latter
grade consisted of 3 posts which were held by secretaries to 3
senior Heads of Function. If the secretarial staff wished to
enter the clerical stream they would have to do so by open
competition.
4. In 1978 revised structures were agreed as follows:-
Clerical Staff | Secretarial Staff
|
Clerical Officer Gr. II (entry | Clerical Assistant (entry grade)
grade) |
| | |
Clerical Officer Grade I | Personnel Assistant Grade II
| | |
Executive Grades | Personnel Assistant Grade I
It was also agreed that clerical assistants and personal
assistants would be able to enter the clerical officer stream
through competitive interview. Personal assistants would be
required to hold a shorthand certificate of at least 100 words per
minute. The offer also proposed that 3 clerical officer
(secretarial) posts in existence in the Secretary's, Engineers and
Marine Departments would be the only posts eligible for transfer
to a new grade 1 level provided a minimum of six years had been
served in the grade.
5. During the period that the revised structures were being
developed two clerical officer vacancies arose. The worker
concerned was appointed to one of the posts in the Depot Manager's
Office with effect from 1st November, 1977 and given the title
personal assistant to the Depot Manager.
6. In May, 1984 the worker wrote to the Head of Personnel stating
that she had completed 6 years as personal assistant to the Depot
Manager and asking what was her position in relation to transfer
to Grade 1. In reply, the worker was informed that in order to be
considered for personal assistant grade 1 it would be necessary
for her to hold the relevant typing qualifications. In February,
1985 the worker wrote to the former head of personnel, who had
interviewed her at the time of her appointment as personal
assistant, seeking his help in relation to her progression from
Grade II to Grade I and stating that he had informed her on two
separate occasions that the shorthand and typing requirements did
not apply in her case as she had been appointed to a clerical
officer position.
7. In March, 1989 the Union sought a meeting to discuss the
workers claim. At the initial meetings the claim was for Personal
Assistant Grade I. It was subsequently changed to clerical
officer Grade I as the Union considered this to be the most
appropriate grading. The Commissioners rejected the claim. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 17th July, 1989. Conciliation conferences were held on
26th July, 1989 and 2nd March, 1990. As no agreement was reached
the parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
30th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. At the time the worker was interviewed for the clerical
officer post she was informed that her duties would be mainly
clerical with some typing. She was also informed by the then
Head of Personnel (who conducted the interview) that she would
automatically progress to clerical officer grade I after
serving 6 years and that as her duties were mainly clerical
the shorthand and typing proficiencies would not be applicable
in her case. The Head of Personnel repeated this statement to
the worker at a training course in September, 1979.
2. When the Union became aware of the facts in March, 1989
and presented a case to the Commissioners, they refused to
accept that the then Head of Personnel made the statement and
that there was no such thing as clerical officer grade II or
grade I at the time. However, as the worker was not a member
of the Union and was unaware of the negotiations which were
taking place at the time the Head of Personnel knew precisely
what the situation was as he was party to the negotiations.
It is the Union's contention that what transpired at the
interview constituted an agreement between the Commissioners
of Irish Lights and the worker and that the Commissioners
should honour that agreement and compensate the worker for
losses incurred.
3. It is clear from the worker's letter of appointment that
she was promoted to a clerical officer position. The letter
states "..... the Commissioners appointed you to the clerical
officer vacancy in the Depot Manager's office with effect from
1st November, 1977. Your new post will be of personal
assistant to the Depot Manager which will require you to
undertake typing....." The worker subsequently received a job
description from the Depot Manager which clearly show that her
duties were mainly clerical (details supplied to the Court).
COMMISSIONER'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. On 1st November, 1977 the worker was appointed as personal
assistant to the Depot Manager and was graded at clerical
officer pay level. All similar posts in the Service were
graded at this level and it was clearly understood and
accepted that they were not part of the clerical officer
stream.
2. The Union's claim that the worker should now be appointed
a clerical officer Grade 1 means that it considers that her
appointment in November, 1977 was to a clerical and not a
secretarial post. This contention is considered invalid for
the following reasons:-
(a) her letter of appointment states that she was a
personal assistant. The term 'personal assistant' was
used instead of clerical officer (secretarial) in view
of the positive response by the Union to proposals for
a new structure for secretarial staff.
(b) the revised agreement concluded with the Union in
March, 1978 clearly identifies the worker's personal
assistant post at the Lighthouse Depot as being one of
the two new promotional outlets in the secretarial
stream for clerical assistants.
(c) the salary paid to her from 1st November, 1977 confirms
that her appointment was within the secretarial and not
the clerical stream. The clerical officer scale is age
pointed as it is a recruitment grade. Had the worker
been appointed to that grade, she would have entered
the scale at the highest age point (24) at a salary of
#3,247 per annum. The clerical officer (secretarial)
scale was not age pointed as it was a promotional scale
from clerical assistant. On her appointment in
November, 1977, the worker received a promotional
increase with incremental credit which in fact placed
her one point above the highest entry point on the
clerical officer scale.
3. The former Head of Personnel denies the worker's
allegations that he stated she would be automatically promoted
after 6 years and that she would not need proficiency in
shorthand or typing.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. Having considered the evidence submitted by both parties the
Court is of the view that the dispute arose from a
misunderstanding by the claimant of her position. The Court
accordingly upholds the Commissioners' position. Whilst rejecting
the claim the Court considers that in the special circumstances of
the case the Commissioners should in this instance sympathetically
consider waiving the proficiency requirement in shorthand and
allow the claimant to progress up the Grade I salary scale from a
current date.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
30th May, 1990.
M.D./J.C. Deputy Chairman