Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92672 Case Number: LCR13886 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD FAILTE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION |
A dispute concerning the nature of a job evaluation scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court accepts the Union
contention that agreement was reached between the parties to have
a job evaluation in 1992 covering all approved permanent jobs in
Head Office.
The Court therefore recommends that the jobs should be ranked by a
committee consisting of a representative of Management, a
representative of the Union and an Independent Chairman.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92672 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13886
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD FAILTE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the nature of a job evaluation scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Bord Failte, as a result of a Government Directive in
1991, had to take steps to reduce its staff numbers on a
phased basis up to 1994. The Union contended that the
projected reduction in staffing levels would result in many of
the remaining staff being required to expand their jobs and
undertake higher level duties.
2. In December, 1991, proposals were put forward by the
Bord which provided for an overall job evaluation to commence
in April, 1992. The Union confirmed the workers acceptance of
these proposals on the 4th May, 1992.
3. The Bord, by letter dated the 18th June, 1992, proposed
a management review with the possibility of an appeals
mechanism which might involve an agreed third party. The
Union rejected this proposal. They maintained that the
agreement reached in December, 1991 provided for an overall
job evaluation which would have to be carried out by a
reputable third party, agreed by both sides and on terms of
reference mutually acceptable.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 11th August, 1992 and a conciliation
conference was held on the 9th October, 1992. Agreement could
not be reached and the matter was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 29th October,
1992. The Labour Court investigated the matter on the 17th
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement of December, 1991 (Clause 4), provided
that an independent job evaluation exercise would be carried
out, commencing in April, 1992.
2. The agreement states that 166 permanent jobs at head
office would be covered by the job evaluation.
3. In all discussions with the Company reference was made
to an independent review.
4. The Bord agreed to put aside funds for the overall job
evaluation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bord did not commit itself to an independent job
evaluation.
2. The format of the job evaluation was to be decided in
1992.
3. The appointment of a full-time job evaluation expert to
undertake an elaborate examination of every post is
unjustified
4. A similar job evaluation carried out in 1984 was
unsatisfactory.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court accepts the Union
contention that agreement was reached between the parties to have
a job evaluation in 1992 covering all approved permanent jobs in
Head Office.
The Court therefore recommends that the jobs should be ranked by a
committee consisting of a representative of Management, a
representative of the Union and an Independent Chairman.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
1st December, 1992 ---------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.