Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90425 Case Number: LCR13035 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEAGASC - and - UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS |
Claim by the Union for the regrading of the post of a Senior Technical Officer (S.T.O.) (Architectural) to Experimental Officer I level.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the
questions of the integration of the A.C.O.T. and A.F.T. staff be
the subject of discussions between the parties. In the event that
it is found that integration of the staff is not feasible the
Court recommends that arrangements be made for the evaluation of
the work of the complainant and the comparator referred to by the
Union, with a view to agreement on the rate of pay to be applied
to the post concerned.
The Court recommends that the parties ensure the case is dealt
with as a matter of urgency. It has been noted that a number of
similar cases have been referred to the Court. It would appear
this has arisen due to the lack of suitable procedures for the
evaluation and review of posts within the organisation. It is the
view of the Court that the parties should seek to improve the
Industrial Relations climate by rectifying this deficiency as a
matter of urgency.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90425 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13035
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the regrading of the post of a Senior
Technical Officer (S.T.O.) (Architectural) to Experimental Officer
I level.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 a statutory staff scheme was introduced for technical
staff in A.C.O.T. The scheme provided for a three grade
structure, Technical Officer, Higher Technical Officer and Senior
Technical Officer. Job descriptions were agreed for the grades
and a job evaluation exercise was carried out by the Irish
Productivity Centre. The post of the worker concerned was graded
as S.T.O. (details of his job description supplied to the Court).
In 1988 A.C.O.T. and An Foras Taluntais (A.F.T.) were merged to
form Teagasc. The former A.F.T. staff retain a higher grading
structure as follows. Entry Grade, Career Grade, Promotion Grade,
Experimental Officer Grade II, Experimental Officer Grade I and
Principal Experimental Officer. In January, 1990 the Union
submitted a claim that the post of the worker concerned should be
graded at Experimental Officer Grade I level. Management rejected
the claim. The issue could not be resolved in local discussions
and was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court
on the 18th April, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on
the 27th June, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 12th July, 1990. A Court
hearing was held on the 19th September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The range of duties and responsibilities now undertaken by
the worker concerned render the grading established in 1986
invalid. Since the original grading was determined in 1986
the claimants work has changed significantly (details of all
duties now undertaken by the worker supplied to the Court).
In particular the worker undertakes significant higher level
work which is not appropriate to S.T.O. viz: he provides and
supervises, as required, the induction and in-service training
of professional advisors and specialists, the organisation and
supervision of projects including significant building
contracts, the preparation of specifications for buildings
including the initial design of buildings, the provision of an
individual national specialist service on the Agriline Clinic
(both by phone and computer).
2. The salary of the worker concerned is out of line with
analogous grades undertaking similar work elsewhere. For
example the Union represents the draughtsman in the buildings
division of Telecom Eireann. The main duties of the post are
concerned with building construction/adaptation and the
diagnosis of defects in existing buildings and proposing and
arranging appropriate remedial action. The salary maximum is
five thousand pounds more than that of the worker concerned.
The Telecom Eireann post is more narrowly focused than the
Teagasc post in view of the worker's responsibility for
training staff and for the Agriline Clinic.
3. Many former A.F.T. technicians are graded at Experimental
Officer level. These include posts in the former A.F.T.
building unit with which the worker concerned can be compared.
These posts are graded at Experimental Officer I level.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The job specification for S.T.O. as contained in the staff
scheme provides for duties at a level equivalent to those
presently being carried out by the worker concerned. His
submission to the job evaluation committee in 1986 (details
supplied to the Court) outlines duties which are as onerous as
those he presently performs and these duties were
appropriately graded at S.T.O. level. He presently reports to
two professional staff in relation to his work programme.
2. The introduction of the staff scheme in 1986 established a
three grade promotional structure for technicians. This claim
is an attempt to break the agreed promotional structure. It
is unacceptable that any staff member covered by the staff
scheme for technical grades would be regraded to a level not
contained in the agreed staff scheme. If the Union no longer
considers the promotional structure set out in the staff
scheme to be adequate it is open to it to pursue this issue
with Management. The Union has not chosen to do so.
3. In effect the Union is seeking the highest former A.F.T.
technical graded for a staff member who is on the highest
former A.C.O.T. technical grade. Management cannot
contemplate staff interchanging between grading structures
prior to consideration of the desirability or otherwise of an
integrated structure for technical grades.
4. Management is satisfied that the worker concerned is
appropriately grade. The appropriateness or otherwise of the
grading of former A.F.T. technical staff has not been examined
by Management to date. In this regard, it should be noted
that the conditions of service for former A.F.T./A.C.O.T.
staff cannot be worsened under the Teagasc Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the
questions of the integration of the A.C.O.T. and A.F.T. staff be
the subject of discussions between the parties. In the event that
it is found that integration of the staff is not feasible the
Court recommends that arrangements be made for the evaluation of
the work of the complainant and the comparator referred to by the
Union, with a view to agreement on the rate of pay to be applied
to the post concerned.
The Court recommends that the parties ensure the case is dealt
with as a matter of urgency. It has been noted that a number of
similar cases have been referred to the Court. It would appear
this has arisen due to the lack of suitable procedures for the
evaluation and review of posts within the organisation. It is the
view of the Court that the parties should seek to improve the
Industrial Relations climate by rectifying this deficiency as a
matter of urgency.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
27th September, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.