Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90690 Case Number: LCR13172 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by technicians at private agricultural colleges for pay parity with Teagasc technicians.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the parties agree to the
appointment of an assessor to provide an objective report on the
Union's claim for parity between the grades in question.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90690 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13172
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by technicians at private agricultural colleges for pay
parity with Teagasc technicians.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The workers concerned are employed at 7 private colleges
directly funded by Teagasc and form the Association of
Agricultural Colleges. The workers claim their salary
determination should be on a par with former technicians of
An Foras Taluntais (AFT) now employed by Teagasc. This claim
first came before the Court in 1980 (LCR5573), at which time
the Court appointed an Assessor. The Court recommended the
introduction of a standard set of conditions which were no
less favourable than that of their counterparts in State
aided colleges. It did not however recommend that the pay
and conditions of the workers be directly linked to the pay
and conditions of technicians employed by AFT.
2. The claimants grading/salary structure on the 1
September, 1990 is as follows:-
GRADE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
________________________________________________________
Supervisory Agricultural
Officer #12,643 #17,355
Higher Agricultural Officer #10,753 #14,731
Agricultural Officer # 9,280 #13,636
________________________________________________________
The grading/salary structure on the 1 September, 1990 of the
former AFT technicians is as follows:-
GRADE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
________________________________________________________
Entry Grade #10,215 #11,888
Career Grade #12,189 #16,831
Promotion Grade #15,834 #19,079
Exper. Officer II #18,527 #21,067
Exper. Officer 3 #21,681 #23,211
Prin. Exper. Officer #22,462 #25,123
_______________________________________________________
3. The Union considers the outcome of the assessment to be
less than satisfactory (details supplied to the court) and
feels the development and evolution of the job over the
intervening years amplifies this. The most practical way to
process the claim from its point of view is with the
involvement of a job evaluation professional. Management saw
no basis for comparability between the claimants grading
structure and that pertaining to former AFT technicians.
This stance being justified by the assessor's report of 1980.
4. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Court on the 20 June, 1990 and a conciliation
conference was held on 6 October. No agreement was reached
and both sides agreed to a referral to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. A Labour Court investigation took place on 9
January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers present position is consistent with the
claim which they brought to the Court approximately 13 years
ago and they are convinced that their claim has merit. There
is a strong feeling that the assessor did not have an
opportunity to properly analyse the work of the claimants.
In addition local managements may not have been sufficiently
aware of the rationale or terms of reference for the study.
In the event of the exercise being repeated the workers
request the Court emphasise the need for greater
participation by both sides in the work of the assessor and
that this stipulation be written into the terms of reference.
2. Since the last evaluation, the position has
significantly changed. It is the practice in some colleges
for technicians to give short courses which was not a factor
during the period of the last assessment. The Association of
Agricultural Colleges are now directly funded by Teagasc.
The Colleges argue that concession of this claim will have
considerable ramifications within Teagasc. This factor
should not detract from the validity of the case and should
certainly not influence the judgement of an assessor doing a
technical job evaluation exercise. A comparison with the
Department of Agriculture was determined by the previous
evaluation. This was never accepted and the development of
the grades in the intervening period amplifies this. It is
also a factor that the reduction in numbers since 1980 has
passed more responsibility on those remaining.
3. It was not appropriate to provide a factor by factor
analysis of the technicians work for the Court as the
differing aspects and different colleges would make it a
lengthy and time consuming exercise. The Union feel that the
most practical way to process the claim is the involvement of
a job evaluation professional. A useful reference document
would be the existing internal Teagasc evaluation process
which as a system for grade determination has been in
operation for some time.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1980 the Court decided on this case (LCR5573 refers)
after taking full account of submissions and the report of an
assessor. Its recommendation was implemented in full by the
College Authorities. At this stage there is still no basis
for comparability between the claimants grading structure and
that of the former AFT technicians.
2. The different grading structures involved for alignement
were developed on a different basis and were designed to
operate in two very different environments. The claimants
work primarily as support for teaching staff in the Colleges
and are mainly involved in the giving of practical
demonstration on farm methods to students and in the running
of farm enterprises. No laboratory work is involved.
3. The AFT grading structure was established primarily
because the technical analytical work carried out by
laboratory technicians in AFT is an integral element of
research programmes. This work must conform to the highest
national and international scientific research standards.
This was judged to be of an equivalent responsibility level
to laboratory technicians employed in the Department of
Agriculture and the Health Services . As field technicians
also perform duties as part of research programmes it was
decided to include them in the revised grading structure.
4. The independent assessor in his report stated as
follows:
"It would appear logical, therefore, in looking at
matters of pay and conditions of service in State aided
colleges, to look inwardly at the ACOT sphere of
influence rather than outwardly at any other
establishment".
There is now as a result a common grading structure for
agricultural officers of the Department of Agriculture,
former ACOT technical officers employed in Teagasc colleges
and technicians employed in the private colleges. If the
Court recommends in favour of the claim, the repercussive
effects leading to cost implications for Teagasc and the
Department of Agriculture would be enormous.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the parties agree to the
appointment of an assessor to provide an objective report on the
Union's claim for parity between the grades in question.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24 January, 1991 John O'Connell
J.F./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman