Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91424 Case Number: LCR13424 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the present grading of personal secretaries.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all aspects of the issue as
put forward by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that whilst the grading structure proposed by the
I.P.A. was acceptable to the parties the point of assimilation of
certain workers was not agreed.
To complete the implementation of the grading structure and the
assimilation of all the workers, the disputed posts require to be
assessed and the workers assimilated on the grading structure in
accordance with the results of the assessment. The parties should
arrange accordingly for a joint assessment to be carried out.
If good industrial relations are to be developed and maintained
the grading structure should contain a procedure by which gradings
can be appealed (as proposed by the I.P.A.). Accordingly the
parties should agree and introduce a mechanism by which this can
be done.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on an appeals
procedure the Court shall be prepared to assist.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91424 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13424
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: TEAGASC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the present grading of personal
secretaries.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following agreement with the Union and the L.G.P.S.U. in
September, 1989, the Authority commissioned the Institute of
Public Administration (I.P.A.) to carry out a study of the
Administrative Support Services in the Authority. In December,
1989, a comprehensive report was published by the I.P.A. which
included a recommendation that the post of personal secretary be
graded at Grade 2 level, with an allowance to compensate for the
additional responsibilities and time demands associated with the
job. The report also suggested that as previously recommended by
the Labour Court, a grading appeals mechanism should be
established by the Authority. The Union rejected the grading of
personal secretaries as recommended in the report but agreed in
principle that the matter be dealt with under the proposed grading
appeals mechanism. The Authority has rejected the proposal
arguing that it is debarred from establishing such a mechanism
under the terms of the P.E.S.P. As no agreement could be reached
locally the matter was referred on 5th April, 1991, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission. No
agreement was reached at conciliation conference held on 19th
July, 1991 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 9th August, 1991, in
accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on 19th August,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job of Secretary to the Director is comparable to
that of a Higher Executive Officer in the Civil Service i.e.
Grade 4. This would also bring it into line with the grading
of similar posts within the public service e.g. Secretary to
the Chief Executives in the I.D.A. and C.T.T.
2. The job of Secretary to the Programme Director is
comparable to that of a Civil Service Executive Officer i.e.
Grade 3, by virtue of the range of duties and
responsibilities carried out, which are wide ranging. The
I.P.A. report does not refer to this post or indeed the
Programme Director's function. It is important to note that
following the Authority's establishment a decision was made
to create a new post of Programme Director. This post is
senior to that of Head of Centre and the holder of the post
reports directly to the Director of the Authority.
3. The I.P.A. report did not correctly reflect the
situation regarding secretarial services within the
Authority. The Union is not aware of any points system used
by the I.P.A. in determining grade and finds it unacceptable
that the I.P.A. analyst presumes that in most centres the
range of duties attaching to the post of Secretary to the
Programme Director is determined by Head of Centre. The
analyst stated that he was of the opinion, following
lengthy consideration, that less than Grade 3 is appropriate.
The Union was not party to any consideration on the matter
nor is the Union aware if any comparisons, internally or
externally, were made when deciding the matter.
4. The Union accepts the grading of Secretary to Head of
Centre and Secretary to Head of Department and believes that
the grading of the other posts could be reviewed
satisfactorily through a grading appeals mechanism. The
Authority's contention that such a mechanism is precluded
under the terms of the P.E.S.P. is not acceptable and is in
fact contrary to the spirit of the P.E.S.P.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The I.P.A. report recommended a grading of Grade 2 with
an appropriate allowance. The Authority is prepared to
negotiate with the Union on an appropriate allowance for the
post, in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and
Finance.
2. Following a detailed examination of administrative posts
in the Authority, including the posts in question, the Union
accepted the grading structure recommended by the I.P.A.
Approximately 50 promotions/upgradings have been implemented
as a result of the recommendations in the I.P.A. report.
These have been implemented despite the Authority's critical
financial position and against the background of a Government
directive to the Authority to achieve a balanced budget in
1991.
3. Under the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the
operation in the Public Service of Clause 3 of the Agreement
on Pay which forms part of the P.E.S.P., Unions can pursue
either a restructuring/productivity deal or a traditional pay
claim. Not more than one cost-increasing claim may be
processed. Whichever option is selected, a continuous series
of individual or group upgrading claims, outside of a
once-off Clause 3 restructuring/productivity claim, is not
permissible. If staff are dissatisfied with a grade
structure the Pay Agreement provides a mechanism for
addressing the issue in the context of a general
renegotiation of structures and working practices for a
particular group of workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all aspects of the issue as
put forward by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that whilst the grading structure proposed by the
I.P.A. was acceptable to the parties the point of assimilation of
certain workers was not agreed.
To complete the implementation of the grading structure and the
assimilation of all the workers, the disputed posts require to be
assessed and the workers assimilated on the grading structure in
accordance with the results of the assessment. The parties should
arrange accordingly for a joint assessment to be carried out.
If good industrial relations are to be developed and maintained
the grading structure should contain a procedure by which gradings
can be appealed (as proposed by the I.P.A.). Accordingly the
parties should agree and introduce a mechanism by which this can
be done.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on an appeals
procedure the Court shall be prepared to assist.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
8th October, 1991
B.O'N. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman