Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92667 Case Number: AD92237 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GALWAY SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 92/92 concerning the regrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
appeal the Court does not consider that valid grounds exist to
overturn the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92667 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD23792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GALWAY SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C.
92/92 concerning the regrading of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Council is a voluntary organisation established in
Galway for over ten years. Its main function is to provide
services to the needy within the City. The Council runs a
number of hostels for homeless men, women and children. It
also runs centres for the elderly and physically disabled. It
employs 10 full-time and 8 part-time workers. The Council is
funded by the Western Health Board and through voluntary
contributions and fund-raising.
2. The worker concerned has 11 years service with the
Council. She was recruited as receptionist/typist at the
equivalent of grade 11 of the Western Health Board's grades.
The worker was upgraded in 1985 to the Board's equivalent of
grade 111.
3. In October, 1991, the Union made a claim for the worker to
be regraded to the equivalent of grade IV of the Board's
grading structure. The basis of the claim was the evolution
of the job from that of receptionist/typist/information
officer to that of Office Manager. The claim was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on 12th February, 1992.
4. No progress was possible at conciliation. The claim was
the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation on 27th
April, 1992. The Rights Commissioner recommended in B.C.
92/92 on 8th May, 1992 that there should be a joint evaluation
of the post within the established job evaluation scheme used
in public service employments. The Rights Commissioner also
recommended as follows:
"When the results of this job evaluation have been
accomplished the matter should again be referred back to
me for a final recommendation which I will make having
given the opportunity to each side to establish what
points it will wish to establish concerning the
interpretation to be made as to the results of the job
evaluation exercise".
5. The evaluation exercise was undertaken on 23rd June, 1992
by a representative of the Department of Health and the Union.
The evaluation team reported on 29th June, 1992 that in its
view the post was "of grade IV status within the health board
clerical/administrative stream". The claim was returned for
consideration to the Rights Commissioner. The Rights
Commissioner issued the final recommendation (B.C. 92/92) as
follows issued on 17th September, 1992.
"In the light of the above I find that the worker should
have her job re-graded from Grade 3 to Grade 4 effective
from the first Monday following receipt of my
Recommendation".
the worker was named in the Recommendation.
6. The Rights Commissioner's final recommendation was
appealed to the Labour Court by the Company by letter dated
22nd October, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took place
in Galway on 11th December, 1992.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's present duties as Office Manager include
dealing with outgoing post, telephones, receptionist, filing,
typing and some fund raising. The worker has no supervisory
duties. The evaluation team credited the worker highly for
the giving of information/advice to the public and her
intervention and representation on its behalf. This role was
developed by the worker on her own and not at the request of
the Council. This role is proper to other agencies (details
supplied) and the Council does not want to duplicate services
readily available elsewhere. It is the Council's belief that
the upgrading was recommended on the basis of this aspect of
the worker's job. This work has not been requested by the
Council and in its view takes up over 50% of the working day.
2. The Council receives a block grant from the Western Health
Board which in 1992 amounted to 79% of the annual budget. The
Board is not prepared to fund what the worker claims to be her
role and has instructed the Council that it must avoid
duplication of services when the service is not within its
brief. The Board will not reimburse the Council's costs if
the claim is conceded. The Council has ongoing funding
difficulties and has to deal with a budget shortfall for 1992
(details supplied).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There can be no dispute about the worker's duties as
evaluated. The job description form used by the evaluation
team was agreed and signed by the Council's Director. The
worker's current rate of pay undervalues her work and is not
commensurate with the range and level of responsibilities of
the post. The response of the evaluation team vindicates this
position.
2. The worker has 10 years experience in the social services
and has participated in numerous training courses run by the
National Social Services Board so as to keep up to date on
social welfare changes. The worker has achieved a diploma in
"Psychology of Counselling" and is a member of the Irish
Association of Counsellors. The Rights Commissioner's
conclusions were based on a joint evaluation of the post and
the worker is willing to accept the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
appeal the Court does not consider that valid grounds exist to
overturn the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________
22nd December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.