Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91345 Case Number: LCR13385 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GILBEYS OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a job evaluation scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the written and verbal
submissions of the parties, notes that the existing grading
structure has already been varied by the management promotions out
of grade "F" to "M" grades. The Court notes that the Union
accepts a management right to make such promotions.
The present job evaluation exercise will, when completed, rate job
content more closely and provide a basis for grade/salary
negotiations. The conclusion of the exercise however, is being
frustrated by the effect of promotions out of "grade F".
To resolve this problem the Court considers that in the first
instance the two employees who were not promoted out of grade "F"
should immediately initiate an appeal which if successful will
resolve the impass.
So that absolute fairness is not only done but seen to be done the
Court recommends that a "third party" with job evaluation
expertise would form part of the appeals team and have access to
all relevant information.
Because of the unique position of I.P.C., the Court recommends
that the "third party" be from that organisation.
Should the appeal fail, then the evaluation of the jobs should be
undertaken by the C.T.S. group in conjunction with jobs in grades
A - E.
The Court so recommends.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91345 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13385
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1990
PARTIES: GILBEYS OF IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a job evaluation scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 400 workers at 3 locations in Dublin.
There are 6 grades (A-F) of clerical, technical and
supervisory staff and above those are 3 "M" grades for
management staff. The Union Company agreement provides for
union representation in the grades A-F. Union membership is
compulsory in the grades A-E and voluntary to the individual
in grade F. A Union recognition agreement was signed in
1983. The grades resulted from a job evaluation exercise in
1981.
2. It was decided by the Company that another job evaluation
exercise was necessary for all grades. The Employee
Relations Group (ERG) consisting of the Personnel Director,
Group Finance Director and Managing Directors of R&A Baily &
Company and Gilbeys of Ireland Manufacturing, chose a Company
called P.E. to undertake a job evaluation exercise in June,
1990. There was to be 2 evaluation schemes, a management
scheme (ERG) and a clerical technical and supervisory scheme
(CTS). The ERG in conjunction with P.E. conducted a study of
all jobs from senior management down to and including grade E
supervisory jobs, to establish which jobs would be covered by
the CTS (Union/Management) scheme and which by the ERG
(management scheme).
3. A dispute arose when the ERG decided that the CTS scheme
would evaluate the grades A-E and the management scheme would
evaluate grade F and the 3M grades. The Union sought the CTS
scheme to also evaluate grade F, for which they had
negotiation rights. No resolution was possible locally and
the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Relations Commission.
4. Conciliation conferences were held on 30th April and 20th May
1991. Agreement was reached to allow the completion of the
process of evaluation up to the most senior F grade. The
management grades and the F grade had been evaluated by the
ERG scheme and as a result 21 of the 23 grade F staff had
been rated as appropriate to management status. An appeals
procedure exists for those that did not achieve management
status. The E grade was surveyed by the ERG scheme and 2 of
the staff had been rated as appropriate to management status
and placed accordingly. The Union insisted that the CTS
scheme should also apply to the F grade. The Company were
unable to agree to this and no resolution was possible. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation on 9th July, 1991. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 30th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1980 staff evaluation exercise had mixed reactions
from staff and there was a lot of hostility as a result to
the present scheme. The Union gave unqualified assurances to
the workers that the evaluation would only be carried out if
it was satisfied that the whole approach was credible and
above board. From briefing with P.E., the whole thrust of
the exercise was that all jobs below main Board Directors
were to participate in a single exercise. As the staff
feared, this has not happened, the Company decided
arbitrarily, which groups of workers the management scheme
would evaluate, leaving the other grades to the CTS. In
addition, the divisive issue of Union/Non-Union staff was
introduced, staff were to be promoted without the
deliberations of the evaluation panel and the threshold
between the management and CTS schemes was to be cloaked in
secrecy.
2. The Union is seeking that the CTS scheme should be used
to evaluate all staff grades represented by the Union. The
Union has no objection to the management scheme evaluating
any jobs they wished in grades E and F, but the CTS scheme
must evaluate all grades A-F. Given that the same criteria
is used by both panels and the same consultant chairs both
assessment committees, the same conclusions should be
reached. If one or two jobs caused a problem, they could be
referred to an independent third party, skilled in job
evaluation.
3. The Union has a representative role with grade F staff
and this is enshrined in the 1983 recognition agreement. The
Union unequivocally recognise Management's right to determine
who will enter the "M" grades. However if a job is found to
be above the highest grade in the Union structure, a new
higher grading in the structure would be sought. The Union
has reluctantly accepted the artificial barrier between the M
grades and those of A-F. It is not able to agree an
extension of the barrier to the jobs in A-F which is the
Union's negotiating arena.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issue is whether the job evaluation exercise
completed by the Employee Relations Group (ERG), chaired by
P.E. was above board and carried out with integrity. The
Company take the view that it must retain the right to decide
the jobs which are part of the management structure of the
Company. The CTG scheme alone should not be the determining
factor in deciding if a position should be part of the
management structure of the Company. It is not practical for
both schemes to evaluate the same jobs. Although the pecking
order would be the same, the bias and therefore the cut off
points would be different. The validity and integrity of the
ERG evaluations can be scrutinised by any third party
familiar with job evaluation techniques.
2. The Company would contend that the Union agreement
excludes grade F staff as it covers A-E jobs. Union
membership for grade F jobs is voluntary to the individual,
not a condition of employment. The majority of F staff are
not represented by the Union and raised no objection to being
evaluated by the management scheme. None of the managers
have sought to be assessed by the CTG scheme.
3. The Company proposed to the Union committee that it was
prepared to have all A-E jobs evaluated by the CTG committee
including those now in the management system. The Company is
receptive to appeals from the 2 grade F positions which were
not included in the management grade as a result of the job
evaluation exercise.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the written and verbal
submissions of the parties, notes that the existing grading
structure has already been varied by the management promotions out
of grade "F" to "M" grades. The Court notes that the Union
accepts a management right to make such promotions.
The present job evaluation exercise will, when completed, rate job
content more closely and provide a basis for grade/salary
negotiations. The conclusion of the exercise however, is being
frustrated by the effect of promotions out of "grade F".
To resolve this problem the Court considers that in the first
instance the two employees who were not promoted out of grade "F"
should immediately initiate an appeal which if successful will
resolve the impass.
So that absolute fairness is not only done but seen to be done the
Court recommends that a "third party" with job evaluation
expertise would form part of the appeals team and have access to
all relevant information.
Because of the unique position of I.P.C., the Court recommends
that the "third party" be from that organisation.
Should the appeal fail, then the evaluation of the jobs should be
undertaken by the C.T.S. group in conjunction with jobs in grades
A - E.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th August, 1991
J.F. / M.O'C. Kevin Heffernan
_______________
Chairman