Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9126 Case Number: LCR13218 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union concerning the establishment of a nationally integrated structure for research, organised under a Deputy-Director.
Recommendation:
5. Responsibility for the achievement of the statutory objectives
of Teagasc, for the allocation of resources to attain this end and
for the establishment of effective staff structures rests with the
Board of Teagasc operating where required with the specific
approvals of the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and for
Finance. In considering these matters it is appropriate that the
Board have regard to the views of staff and their Trade Unions so
as to ensure the widest base of practical experience and knowledge
in the decision-making process. However, in the Court's opinion,
the Board having given due consideration to the various factors
involved must make the final decision which in its view is in the
best interest of the organisation.
The Board has decided on the staff structures having requested the
Unions views and the Court does not consider that it should
recommend that the structures be altered to meet the Union view.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9126 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13218
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the establishment of a
nationally integrated structure for research, organised under a
Deputy-Director.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Authority was established in September, 1988, following
the merger of An Chomhairle Oiliuna Talmhaiochta (A.C.O.T.) and An
Foras Taluntais (A.F.T.). In December, 1988 the Authority
received Ministerial sanction for the management structures of the
new organisation. This provided that the Authority's activities
would be integrated and managed through six divisions, each
controlled by a Programme Director who would report directly to
the National Director. Each Programme Director would be
responsible for all areas under his control i.e. for Advisory,
Education and Research Services. Consultation took place with
staff interests before a final decision was taken on the new
management structure. The Union does not agree with the type of
structure decided upon. The Union believes that the structure is
totally inadequate to meet the needs of research in the
agricultural industry. The matter, along with a number of other
issues, was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. At a conciliation conference held on 20th December, 1990,
the Authority was not willing to discuss management structures
because such decisions are ultimately the responsibility of
management. On 8th January, 1991, the Union referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the
Court's investigation on 31st January, 1991, the Union agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The present structure is not a structure in the
conventional sense. It is different for every
Centre/Division. Some Centres have Heads of Centre, while
others do not. Some Programme Directors have aids, others do
not. There are no clear definitions of what responsibilities
are regional and what are national. The present structure
leads to a lack of direction and organisation. The present
structure was not based on any scientific approach nor to the
needs of the industry but instead it was based on
administrative requirements to accommodate internal political
needs.
3. 2. The Union believes that an overall Director of Research
is required to define and resolve the remit of the different
Centres for the various fields of research. A Head of Centre
for Research is required as a channel through which a Deputy
Director for Research can work and co-ordinate matters. This
is required for overseeing research work. The Director does
not have the time to do this and three of the Programme
Directors responsible for all but one of the Production
Research Centres have no background or competence in research.
3. Research must be of the the highest standard and linking
with other countries' research efforts. As a result it must
be nationally organised. National organisation avoids
wasteful duplication and maximises resources. This approach
is accepted in other developed countries where agricultural
research is organised centrally. Regionally controlled
research does not allow for the development of national
research priorities nor does it allow for proper financing and
budgetary planning because it is always in competition with
local Education and Advisory Service needs.
4. The Government appointed an A.F.T./A.C.O.T. Review Group
which recommended that the two bodies should retain their
separate identities (Cashman Report) but the present structure
integrates the two bodies to such an extent that Research
Scientists now report to people who have never been in and
have no experience of research. This leads to a lack of
confidence and loss of morale amongst the Scientists.
5. Research staff in A.F.T. were led by a Director, three
Deputies, two Associate Directors and seven Assistant
Directors. All of these were Research Scientists. Today only
three of the six Directors are Research Scientists. The
research staff has been reduced from 230 to 122. It is
essential that they have a career structure to accommodate and
promote the most effective use of the remaining Research
Scientists. Under the new structure thirteen promotional
posts, from Assistant Director up, have now been reduced to
three. The Agriculture Act, 1988, which established the
Authority, guaranteed that conditions of employment would not
be less favourable but the present structure severely limits
promotional opportunities.
6. The Union appreciates the difficulty in asking the
Labour Court to impose management structures on any
organisation but the matter is so serious, both for the
workers concerned and the industry as a whole, that the
present structure must be altered. Therefore, it might be
appropriate that somebody be appointed to examine the position
in depth and make a recommendation on structures.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Authority believes that the final decision after
allowing for consultation with staff interests, on an
appropriate management structure for the organisation is the
responsibility of management. It is not an appropriate matter
for investigation and recommendation by the Labour Court.
2. In establishing management structures, a primary
objective was to ensure the development of an effective and
integrated framework for the delivery of Advisory, Education
and Research Services, against a background of a significant
decrease in funding. Comprehensive discussions took place
with staff representatives. All submissions from staff
interests were fully and carefully examined, including the
views put forward by the Union. Only then were decisions on
the establishment of a management structure made.
3. The management structures, in accordance with legal
requirements under the Agriculture Act, 1988, were sanctioned
by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for
Fiance following recommendation by the Authority.
4. The present structure will be reviewed from time to time
in the light of management's experiences and in this regard,
any views put forward by staff will be considered carefully.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Responsibility for the achievement of the statutory objectives
of Teagasc, for the allocation of resources to attain this end and
for the establishment of effective staff structures rests with the
Board of Teagasc operating where required with the specific
approvals of the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and for
Finance. In considering these matters it is appropriate that the
Board have regard to the views of staff and their Trade Unions so
as to ensure the widest base of practical experience and knowledge
in the decision-making process. However, in the Court's opinion,
the Board having given due consideration to the various factors
involved must make the final decision which in its view is in the
best interest of the organisation.
The Board has decided on the staff structures having requested the
Unions views and the Court does not consider that it should
recommend that the structures be altered to meet the Union view.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
------------------
March, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. Chairman