Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9146 Case Number: LCR13213 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim on behalf of industrial relations officers(I.R.O.s) and assistant I.R.O. for regrading.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the claim presented by the Union is covered by
the terms of Para 3.5 of the Elaboration of Clause 3 of the
Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.
The Court does not therefore make any recommendation on the claim
which may be re-submitted by the claimants after 31/3/1991 if they
so wish.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9146 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13213
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of industrial relations officers(I.R.O.s) and
assistant I.R.O. for regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Board was established in 1971 by Ministerial Order to
provide an industrial relations service for local authorities,
health boards and other organisations. It represents these bodies
in negotiations on pay and conditions of employment in respect of
their employees.
3. The industrial relations/negotiating structure within the
Board is comprised of two structures - the Health Division and the
Local Authority Division. Each Division has one Divisional head,
two I.R.O.s and one assistant I.R.O. The salary scale for an
industrial relations officer spans the clerical administrative
grades VI/VII in local authorities and health boards
(#17,107 to #21,573) and the assistant industrial relations
officer scale spans grades IV and V. Progression through the
scales is on merit performance.
4. The Union lodged a claim in June 1990 for a revised maximum
salary of #25,000 for I.R.O. and #20,000 for assistant I.R.O. The
claim was rejected by the Board. The matter was then referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 5th October, 1990.
A conciliation conference was held on 11th December, 1990. At the
conciliation conference the Union amended its claim for I.R.O. to
#22,476 to #26,274 i.e. 85% of Divisional Head's salary scale and
for assistant I.R.O. to #19,105 to #22,237) i.e. 85% of the
I.R.O.'s scale. As no agreement was reached the parties consented
to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 5th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The present salary scales do not adequately reflect the
duties and responsibilities of both the I.R.O. and assistant
I.R.O. Their duties cover a wide spectrum within the
industrial relations area and they perform a vital role in
the representative and advisory service provided by the Board
(details supplied to the Court).
2. In carrying out their duties they work with a wide cross
section of senior management representatives. The I.R.O.s'
salary scale is considerably less than that which applies to
other staff who form part of these management teams.
3. The role performed by the Board has developed and
extended over the years to cover many aspects of personnel
management. In addition the number of clients represented by
the Board has also increased over the years. These factors
have put greater demands on the industrial relations staff.
4. The present pay relationship between the industrial
relations staff and the clerical/administrative staff is
inappropriate. Both perform totally different functions
(details supplied to the Court). In establishing a proper
pay relationship cognizance should be taken of similar staff
in other bodies. On examination it can be seen that the
salary scales of the workers here concerned compare
unfavourably with their counterparts in those other bodies.
(Details supplied to the Court).
5. The claim falls to be dealt with under Clause 3(3) of
the Public Service Pay Agreement.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The claim falls to be dealt with under clause 3(5) of
the elaboration of Clause 3 of the 1987 Agreement on Pay in
the Public Service and consequently cannot be processed to
finality prior to 31 March 1991.
2. The Union has referred to outside comparisons to support
their claim. The Board rejects the validity of these
comparisons and considers that the appropriate comparison
should be Health Board and Local Authority personnel, because
of the Board's close affinity with these organisations and
the fact that the Board is funded directly by these bodies.
3. Concession of this claim could have repercussions
throughout the Local Authority and Health Board Service.
4. The Board submits that no valid case has been made for
departing from the existing pay relationships and accordingly
requests the Court to reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the claim presented by the Union is covered by
the terms of Para 3.5 of the Elaboration of Clause 3 of the
Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.
The Court does not therefore make any recommendation on the claim
which may be re-submitted by the claimants after 31/3/1991 if they
so wish.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D/M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman