Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91178 Case Number: LCR13301 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: S.F.A.D.C.O. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning non-payment of higher grades on promotion, non-payment of higher grades after re-evaluation under the Joint Evaluation Scheme (J.E.S.), and suspension of the J.E.S.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that payment for those promoted to higher
grades and to those whose jobs have been regraded after evaluation
is fully warranted and that suspension of the Job Evaluation
Scheme would be unfair to those workers who are continuing to work
as required.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union's claim should be
conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91178 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13301
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: S.F.A.D.C.O.
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning non-payment of higher grades on promotion,
non-payment of higher grades after re-evaluation under the Joint
Evaluation Scheme (J.E.S.), and suspension of the J.E.S.
BACKGROUND:
2. S.F.A.D.C.O. is a non commercial State-sponsored body under
the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the
Department of Tourism and Transport who together with the
Department of Finance are the Company's shareholders. Staff are
subject to the conditions prevailing generally in the Public
Sector. In March 1990 S.F.A.D.C.O. received a directive from the
Department of Industry and Commerce that no further recruitments
or promotions were to be made until further notice. The
instruction affected a number of workers who had received
upgradings under the J.E.S. (details supplied to the Court). The
J.E.S. had been in operation since 1981. Some workers had been
appointed to higher-graded posts but have not received the grade
appropriate to the post. A number of workers who had their jobs
upgraded arising from job evaluation but have not received the
grade appropriate to the revised grading. Also a number of
workers have applied for evaluation of their jobs under the J.E.S.
but have not yet been given the approval to proceed. The Union
claims that the Company/Union Agreement contains no provision for
the unilateral withholding of grades to workers who are carrying
out the functions of the post to which they have been appointed.
The Company claims that it has no alternative but to withhold all
promotions until the Department's sanction is obtained. The issue
could not be resolved at local level discussions and was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission on
the 17th January, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the
7th March, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 19th March, 1991. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the
15th May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the course of 1990/91 nine employees of
S.F.A.D.C.O. were appointed to higher-graded posts and were
either advised at interview or subsequently, that they would
not be paid the grade appropriate to the posts . The Company
in a letter to each successful candidate acknowledged their
entitlement to the post grade. The Company in not proceeding
with the promotions is in clear breach of the Company/Union
Agreement, specifically Clause 6 and Clause 13.
2. In April 1990 two workers were advised by the Company
that their jobs had been upgraded following evaluation in
accordance with the terms of the J.E.S. However, they were
further advised that they would not be getting the grade
appropriate to the re-evaluation post. The Company's action
is in breach of Clause 13 of the Agreement.
3. A number of other workers have been refused access to
the Job Evaluation process despite the fact that under the
terms of the J.E.S. they are entitled to have their jobs
re-evaluated or evaluated as the case may be.
4. The Union has an Agreement with the Company which covers
all the points in dispute and requests the Court to recommend
that the terms of the Agreements be honoured.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in conjunction
with the Minister for Finance as shareholders, have authority
in deciding on Company policy matters and funding allocations
and in this regard also have full authority for approving the
numbers and grades of staff serving the Company.
2. Details of the Ministerial Directives have been supplied
to and discussed with staff representatives on numerous
occasions since March, 1990.
3. Management has discussed the effects and implications of
the embargo with senior officials of the Department of
Industry and Commerce and Finance in detail and there has
been regular correspondence between the Company and the
Departments on the issue.
4. Specific approval has been sought by the Company to
implement the upgradings and to refer the posts for
evaluation but sanction has not been forthcoming. As all
matters relating to staffing pay and conditions are subject
to Departmental approval, Management has had no option but to
reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that payment for those promoted to higher
grades and to those whose jobs have been regraded after evaluation
is fully warranted and that suspension of the Job Evaluation
Scheme would be unfair to those workers who are continuing to work
as required.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union's claim should be
conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st May, 1991 John O'Connell
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman