LCR13861

Subject:
A dispute concerning incremental credit on appointment as secretarial/clerical assistant in the College.

Recommendation:
5. The evidence at the hearing did not confirm, as a factual
position, that the College had an established policy of awarding
incremental credit to new appointees in respect of previous work
experience.

The College acknowledged that in some circumstances it did award
incremental credit but the considerations outlined were extremely
vague as to their application.

The Court considers that this situation is unsatisfactory and
likely to give rise to disputes. Accordingly the Court recommends
that the College should clarify for the Union the criteria for the
application of incremental credit and the extent to which such
credit may be applied.

With regard to the specific case under consideration, the Court is
of the view that the offer made by the College to apply an
additional increment from 1/1/91 is reasonable, having regard to
all the circumstances and recommends its acceptance by the Union.

Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD92467 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13861

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990


PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION



SUBJECT:

1. A dispute concerning incremental credit on appointment as
secretarial/clerical assistant in the College.

BACKGROUND:

2. 1. The worker was recruited on the 1st April, 1986 as a
secretary at the first point of the grade 1
secretarial/clerical scale, which is the basic grade for
clerical staff within the College. In November, 1990 the
worker became aware that the College had previously awarded
incremental credit on appointment to people with previous work
experience. She requested that the College consider her case
for incremental credit but they did not feel it was
appropriate in her case.

2. Conciliation conferences took place on this and other
issues on the 3rd December, 1991, 25th February, 1992, 28th
April, 1992 and 16th July, 1992. Although a settlement
proposal was produced it was subsequently withdrawn and
agreement could not then be reached. The issue was referred
to the Labour Court on the 6th August, 1992 and the Court
investigated the matter on the 30th October, 1992 in Galway.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's experience and skills are more than
sufficient to justify being placed at a point higher than the
first point of a 9-year scale.

2. The worker's experience of 12 years secretarial,
clerical and administrative duties (8 of which were in
education) clearly were of benefit to the College to a degree
that the College would not have expected to gain from a school
leaver who would have been placed on the first point of the
scale.

3. The worker brought with her an intimate knowledge of the
locality, its people and their method of operation. Being a
native Irish speaker was a further real and undeniable benefit
to the College. If the worker had been aware of the College
policy at the time of her appointment she would have been able
to ensure a level of fair play.

4. The College eventually recognised the need for some
gesture but it remained at that i.e. one increment from the
1st July, 1991 plus her incremental date brought forward to
the 1st January of each year.

5. If an error was made back in 1986 which has cost the
worker money this should be put right, i.e. award the worker
incremental credit from her date of appointment.

COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no formal scheme for granting incremental
credit to newly-appointed secretarial/clerical employees, but
the circumstances of each appointee are considered
individually in determining a starting salary. Account is
taken of qualifications, previous relevant working experience
and, where an appointee is in existing employment, the
remuneration and security level of this, are important factors
in deciding the commencement salary. Persons may, therefore,
be appointed at the minimum point of the grade 1 scale.

2. The worker was treated no differently from any other
prospective employee. At the time of her application to the
College her employment with Colaiste Cholumba, where she had
worked since March, 1979, had become insecure and her position
had been reduced to a temporary part-time one. Her
appointment to a permanent pensionable post in the College
offered her, for the first time in her career, a post with
security and a defined incremental salary scale.

3. The worker was happy to accept the College's offer and
appeared to be content with her position until she raised the
question of her initial starting salary in November, 1990.

4. The Union took up her claim in February 1991 and the
College's response to this was to offer to consider some
movement on her pay scale when appraisal mechanisms became
fully operational and if she had a favourable appraisal. This
offer was rejected by the Union.

5. At a Conciliation Conference held on the 3rd December,
1991, the College firmly maintained its right to determine the
starting salary for its employees, but as a favourable gesture
to the claimant, offered her an additional increment on her
scale backdated to the 1st January, 1991. This offer which
would advance her from the 5th to the 6th point from 1st
January, 1991, with consequent advancement to point 7 of the
scale from 1st January, 1992, was considered by the College to
have settled the claim. However, the offer proved
unacceptable to the worker and consequently the offer was
withdrawn.

6. As a result of a review carried out in accordance with a
job evaluation scheme the worker's job has been upgraded to
the next level, Grade 2, giving her a sizeable salary increase
from 1st March, 1992. This upgrading means that she may,
subject to satisfactory performance, advance through the Grade
2 salary scale with further progression into Grade 3 up to
point 6 of that scale.

RECOMMENDATION:

5. The evidence at the hearing did not confirm, as a factual
position, that the College had an established policy of awarding
incremental credit to new appointees in respect of previous work
experience.

The College acknowledged that in some circumstances it did award
incremental credit but the considerations outlined were extremely
vague as to their application.

The Court considers that this situation is unsatisfactory and
likely to give rise to disputes. Accordingly the Court recommends
that the College should clarify for the Union the criteria for the
application of incremental credit and the extent to which such
credit may be applied.

With regard to the specific case under consideration, the Court is
of the view that the offer made by the College to apply an
additional increment from 1/1/91 is reasonable, having regard to
all the circumstances and recommends its acceptance by the Union.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Heffernan
27th November, 1992 -----------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman

NOTE

EQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.