Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90349 Case Number: LCR13031 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEAGASC - and - UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS |
Claim by the Union for the upgrading of a post from the level of Senior Agricultural Development Officer (S.A.D.O.) to Chief Agricultural Development Officer (C.A.D.O.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
notes that this post is covered by the examination recommended in
a previous Labour Court Recommendation (L.C.R. 12974).
The Court recommends this examination be undertaken wihtout delay
and the review of the job here concerned be dealt with as a matter
of priority.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90349 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13031
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 upgrading of a post from the level
of Senior Agricultural Development Officer (S.A.D.O.) to Chief
Agricultural Development Officer (C.A.D.O.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed in the post of college
principal at the Botanic Gardens. The position was graded, under
a staff scheme for agricultural development officer grades set up
in 1983, at S.A.D.O. level. College principals at the other four
Colleges are graded at C.A.D.O. level. The Union claims that the
post should be upgraded to C.A.D.O. on the grounds that there has
been a significant increase in the range of duties and
responsibilities as well as a large increase in the number of
students at the College. Management has rejected the claim
stating that the post is correctly graded. The issue could not be
resolved in local discussions and was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 3rd April, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 12th June, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 18th June, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the
11th September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since this post was established and graded in 1983
dramatic changes have occurred at the Botanic Gardens. These
include a substantial increase in students on the amenity
horticulture course, the development of a greenkeeper training
course on a fee paying basis, the development of regular
seminars for senior greenkeepers and landscapers, new
facilities for students and the development of a golf
consultancy service.
2. The cost of training per student at the Botanic Gardens
College is far lower than that pertaining at any of the other
agricultural or horticultural colleges. This reflects a more
efficient management at the College than at other
establishments.
3. Management has argued against the upgrading of the post on
the basis of the expenditure/revenue summary 1989 of Teagasc
residential training centres. This would indicate that cost
efficient management is penalised. It also ignores the number
of students attending and courses provided by the College.
The figures for income and expenditure for the institutions
reflect the residential character of all the colleges except
the Botanic Gardens. This should not affect the grading of
the principal. In the case of secondary schools no
differentiation is made between the salaries of principals of
boarding and day schools.
4. The position of college principal in the Botanic Gardens
involves complete responsibility for all educational courses
supervision of three teaching staff and one clerk/typist, the
management of financial and other resources both owned by
Teagasc or leased to Teagasc, and golf course consultancy
service. The number of students attending the Botanic Gardens
college compares favourably with the other Teagasc colleges
(details supplied to the Court).
5. The responsibility of the post of the worker concerned
does not conform to the job discription of S.A.D.O. and the
worker should not be so graded. The post should be graded at
the same level as all other college principals - C.A.D.O.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1983 the level of the claimants post was established at
Senior Agricultural Development Officer as it was agreed that
the duties of the post did not involve the same level of
responsibility for physical, financial and staff resources as
the other four college principal posts. The Union accepted
that this was the appropriate level for this post. The
criteria which determined the appropriate grading level for
the post have not altered in the meantime and the Union has
advanced no convincing arguments to the contrary.
2. There are no grounds for comparing this post with those of
the other four college principals. Whereas the latter has
responsibility for the management of a substantial farm and
facilities for residential students no such duties or
responsibilities devolve on the post of the worker concerned.
The management of the farm operation places an onerous
responsibility on the other four college principals which
justifies their grading at C.A.D.O. level. The farms are
major commercial enterprises as illustrated by the
expenditure/revenue summary (details supplied to the Court).
A similar responsibility for financial and physical resources
does not exist for the college principal at Botanic Gardens.
3. Although student numbers have increased in the Botanic
Gardens since 1983 this does not alter the rationale of the
agreed decision at that time to grade this job at S.A.D.O.
level. Clearly, in reaching this decision little cognisance
was taken of student numbers as the Botanic Gardens had a
greater number of students than two of the other colleges
(Ballyhaise and Clonakilty) in 1983.
4. The Labour Court has recently recommended (L.C.R. No.
12974) that Teagasc should appoint the I.P.A. to examine and
report on the Union's claim for the creation of additional
posts by way of an improved career structure for former ACOT
professional staff now employed in Teagasc. This
recommendation is presently being considered by Teagasc in
consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Food and
Finance. As a former ACOT professional staff member the
claimant's post is covered by the Labour Courts
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
notes that this post is covered by the examination recommended in
a previous Labour Court Recommendation (L.C.R. 12974).
The Court recommends this examination be undertaken wihtout delay
and the review of the job here concerned be dealt with as a matter
of priority.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
26th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.