Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9155 Case Number: LCR13273 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEAGASC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 122 research workers concerning changes to management structures in the Authority.
Recommendation:
5. Claim 1: Appointment of two National Research Co-ordinators
Claim 2: Appointment of a head of Research at each centre.
Having considered the arguments put forward by the
parties, the Court does not find grounds to justify
concession of the Union claims and recommends
acceptance of the Teagasc proposals of one National
Research Co-ordinator and a Head of Centre at
Oakpark and at Johnstown Castle.
Claim 3: Increased Allowance for Head of Research Department.
Having regard to the heightened managerial role of
the Head of Research Department, the Court
recommends that the appointments be for the proposed
five year term and that the allowance payable to the
position be increased to #2,000 per annum.
Claim 4: Head of Horticulture (Kinsealy)
Taking account of the overall structure and the
broad levels of responsibility, the Court does not
find grounds to recommend Programme Director status
for the proposed Head of Horticulture at Kinsealy
but recommends that the position carry an allowance
of #4,000 per annum.
Claim 5: Eligibility for Research Posts.
Having regard to the undertaking given by management
and accepted by the Union at the hearing, that high
qualification criteria will be set in order to
maintain scientific standards, the Court recommends
that research posts be open to all suitably
qualified Teagasc staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
3rd May, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9155 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13273
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 122 research workers
concerning changes to management structures in the Authority.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Authority was established in September, 1988 following the
merger of An Chomhailre Oiliuna Talmhaiochta (A.C.O.T.) and An
Foras Taluntais (A.F.T.). In December, 1988, the Authority
received ministerial sanction for the implementation of management
structures for the new organisation. These provided that the
activities of the Authority 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. The Union objects
to the 'regional structure' for research and favours a nationally
integrated structure under a Deputy Director with responsibility
for research. No agreement was reached between the parties
despite considerable discussions on the implementation of the
research structure and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference held on
20th December, 1990, the Union listed 7 items which they wished to
discuss. The items are as follows:-
(A) The Union is committed to a nationally-integrated
structure for Research organised under a
Deputy Director (Research).
(B) In the context of the current regional structure, the
Union asserts the need for two National Research
Co-ordinators (one in the area of animal sciences, and
one in the area of plant sciences).
(C) A Head of Research, in line, should be appointed at all
Research Centres, his/her responsibilities to include
direction of research, technical and back-up staff and
research facilities at the centre. In the case of the
Food Centres at Dunsinea and Moorepark, this function
should be exercised by the respective Programme
Directors.
(D) The Head of Research position should be a permanent
appointment, at Assistant Director level.
(E) The Head of Department position should be a term
appointment (5 years) with an increased allowance.
(F) Appointments to the positions of National Research
Co-ordinator, Head of Research and Head of Department
should be from permanent members of the research staff.
(G) The Union objects to a Head of Horticulture Research
being appointed without consultation.
No agreement could be reached at the conciliation conference and
on 17th January, 1991, items (B) to (G) were referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the matters on 31st January, 1991.
Note: Item (A) was the subject of a separate Labour Court hearing
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
(LCR13218 refers).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The present structure is regional as opposed to having a
national structure for research. If this is to remain, the
Union believes that two National Research co-ordinators should
be appointed. One with responsibility for animal sciences and
the other for plant sciences. These co-ordinators would
assist the Director in a number of ways, including assisting
in the determination of national needs and priorities and
prevent duplication of work, determine the research budget and
maintain contact with other research agencies. The Union
contends that this is necessary because at present Programme
Directors have responsibility for advice and educational
services as well as research and as a result research will
lose out because of its long term nature.
2. The Union claims that a Head of Research should be
appointed at every centre where research is carried out. This
position has been a permanent post at Assistant Director level
for many years in A.F.T. The Head of Research
responsibilities would include initiation and direction of
research and the management of research facilities. The need
for Heads of Research at all centres is illustrated by the
fact that members of the research staff have been appointed at
three centres in an acting capacity to ensure the smooth
running of the centres. At other centres currently being run
by Programme Directors it is clear that their lack of research
experience coupled with the remoteness of research from their
concerns make it impossible for them to play an active role in
determining research policy.
3. The Union believes that the Head of Department in a
Research position should be a term appointment with an
increased allowance. The current allowance of #402 per annum
has not changed since the 1970's. The post holder must
optimise income and interact with non-research colleagues.
Indexation alone would increase the allowance to #3,000
without any payment for the extra duties.
4. A member of staff has been appointed to the position of
Head of Horticulture Research with the duties of a Programme
Director but with the salary of a Senior Principal Officer.
This level did not exist previously and no discussions have
taken place with the Union. The position is the equivalent to
that of Programme Director and should demand the same status.
5. As all the posts identified by the Union deal directly
with carrying out research programmes, it is essential that
they be filled by staff with a background in research i.e.
existing research staff. Since the Union is not seeking an
increase in the number of research staff, the only cost of
conceding the Union's claim would be the promotional costs.
This is a small price to pay for an increase in the
effectiveness and morale of the research staff.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Authority believes that it would be much more
effective and efficient to proceed with the appointment of one
National co-ordinator for Research rather than two. Indeed
two co-ordinating assignments would result in a fragmentary
approach to research co-ordination. As with all management
decision, it would be the Authority's policy to review the
effectiveness of such an arrangement on an on-going basis.
2. The Authority accepts that a Head of Research should be
appointed at the major research centres (Johnstown Castle and
Oakpark), which do not have a Programme Director "in situ".
At all other centres a Programme Director is in place or as at
Kinsealy, a Head of Horticulture and, therefore, a head of
Research is not required.
3. In the two centres where the Authority accepts the need
for a Head of Research, it is proposed that these posts be
filled on a 5 year term basis. With the appointment of
Programme Directors, the heightened role of Heads of Research
Departments, together with an overall reduction in staffing
and resources, it is the Authority's view that the appointment
of a head of Research at the former A.F.T. grade of Assistant
Director with an annual salary of approximately #39,000 could
not be justified. The Authority is in a critical financial
position and requires stringent cost cutting measures to
balance its budget. The Authority is unable to meet cost
increasing claims.
4. 4. The allowance for Head of Department in Research has
since 1973, attracted the appropriate percentage increases'
applied to basic pay under national agreements and now stands
at #402 per annum. Given the Authority's critical financial
position, it is not possible to make any concession on this
claim at this stage. The Authority recognises that as a
result of the heightened managerial role of Heads of
Departments there may be need for a re-allocation of time
spent between research and management duties. The Authority
agrees with the Union's contention that the posts should be on
a five year term basis.
5. The Authority proposes that as from 1st January, 1991,
suitably qualified staff will be eligible to apply for all
posts within the organisation. The criteria for eligibility
to compete for research posts will be extremely high in order
to maintain the scientific standards that currently exist.
However, the Authority does not agree with the Union's
position that a non-research staff member who is otherwise
suitably qualified cannot compete for posts within the
research grades.
6. Consultations did take place with the union's regarding
the appointment of a head of Horticulture with responsibility
for advisory, education and research services to this
industry. Protracted discussions took place between the
Authority, An Bord Glas and relevant Government Departments in
relation to the appropriate grading for the post. The
Authority is satisfied that Senior Principal Officer grading
is appropriate as the duties attaching to the post are not as
broad as those of a Programme Director. The position will
carry the responsibilities hitherto carried by the head of
Kinsealy Research Centre, placing him in a similar position to
the heads of Oakpark and Johnstown Castle.
4. 7. Prior to resolution of the dispute regarding the grading
of the Head of Horticulture post, the Authority felt that it
was essential that if long term damage to services to the
industry were to be avoided, it was imperative to ensure that
these services were being managed effectively. As a result,
following internal competition, a staff member has been
appointed to the post on a temporary basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Claim 1: Appointment of two National Research Co-ordinators
Claim 2: Appointment of a head of Research at each centre.
Having considered the arguments put forward by the
parties, the Court does not find grounds to justify
concession of the Union claims and recommends
acceptance of the Teagasc proposals of one National
Research Co-ordinator and a Head of Centre at
Oakpark and at Johnstown Castle.
Claim 3: Increased Allowance for Head of Research Department.
Having regard to the heightened managerial role of
the Head of Research Department, the Court
recommends that the appointments be for the proposed
five year term and that the allowance payable to the
position be increased to #2,000 per annum.
Claim 4: Head of Horticulture (Kinsealy)
Taking account of the overall structure and the
broad levels of responsibility, the Court does not
find grounds to recommend Programme Director status
for the proposed Head of Horticulture at Kinsealy
but recommends that the position carry an allowance
of #4,000 per annum.
Claim 5: Eligibility for Research Posts.
Having regard to the undertaking given by management
and accepted by the Union at the hearing, that high
qualification criteria will be set in order to
maintain scientific standards, the Court recommends
that research posts be open to all suitably
qualified Teagasc staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
3rd May, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman