Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91674 Case Number: LCR13566 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the regrading of a Senior Research Officer.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds there is considerable merit in
the claimant's case.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the tardy manner in which
this case has been handled.
It is clear to the Court that the claimant has made available
in a dedicated and loyal manner his considerable talents and
expertise. One would expect that in the interest of providing
the type and quality of service required, the responsible
authorities would have ensured that the claimant's situation
would have been considered and dealt with in an equitable and
expeditious way. It is the view of the Court that this
unacceptable situation should be addressed immediately.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claim be conceded in
full (i.e. that the claimant be regraded with effect from July,
1988 title of the job to be agreed).
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91674 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13566
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the regrading of a Senior
Research Officer.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant is employed by the Board as a Senior Research
Officer in Charge. Prior to 1987, he reported to the Research
Manager. However, in 1987 the Research Manager left the
employment of the Board and the claimant was required to report
directly to the Chief Executive Officer. With the departure of
the Research Manager responsibilities for staff management and
supervision, budgetary preparations and control, expenditure
responsibility, research coordination and scientific
assessments were passed to the claimant. No extra remuneration
was given. On 8th July, 1988, the Union lodged a claim for
regrading in line with the duties being performed.
Specifically, the Union contends that the claimant should be
regraded from the maximum point (£29,276) of the Senior
Research Officer scale to the grade of Senior Principal
Research Officer (Eolas) or Senior Principal Scientific Officer
(Teagasc). The Eolas and Teagasc scales are identical (£30,648
X 4 to £33,364). The salary scales of the Research Officer
grades in the Board are linked to comparable grades in Eolas
and Teagasc and have a direct linkage with comparable grades in
the former Foras Forbartha.
Agreement could not be reached locally and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 18th April,
1991. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference
held on 21st June, 1991 and the Commission, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, referred
the matter on 15th December, 1991 to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
matter on 30th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant has been employed by the Board and its
precursor, the Inland Fisheries Trust, for 27 years. He
has been graded as Senior Research Officer for almost 22
years of this period. Over this span of time he has been
instrumental in developing and overseeing the growth of
the Research Division and its capabilities for research
work. He is an international expert in freshwater
crustacea and fisheries science and has published numerous
papers in scientific journals. He has been invited to
present scientific papers in Ireland and abroad. He is
also an invited member of numerous committees of national
importance. He initiated the contracting out of the
Board's research staff and in 1991, £0.333m of contracts
were completed.
2. In 1985, the Management Services Unit (M.S.U.) of the
Department of the Public Service carried out an assessment
of the management and structures of the Board. Having
assessed the Research Section, the M.S.U. recommended that
the Research Division be organised and staffed with a
Research Manager having a grading of Senior Principal
Research Officer.
3. The M.S.U. also laid down criteria for the post of
Research Manager. The claimant fulfills all the criteria
(details provided). In Teagasc, for advancement to Senior
Principal Research Officer, the criteria includes "in
addition to proven ability as a Principal Research
Officer, including considerable distinction as a leader
and organiser of research, the person would have national
and international standing in his/her scientific field
with full responsibility for a national programme area.
She/he would also have to have a very high degree of
originality and initiative in solving complex and critical
problems impeding progress in areas of national
importance. This person would also be able to generate
substantial external funding for research". The claimant
fulfills all the criteria laid down by Teagasc.
4. For reasons that are obscure, the Department of the
Marine and the Department of Finance have withheld
sanction for the claimant's regrading. The Union contends
that a case for regrading exists and requests the Court to
recommend concession of the claim, effective from July,
1988.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board considers that it would be inopportune to
consider regrading the claimant until final decisions have
been made on the re-organisation of research bodies that
would take place in connection with the setting up of the
Marine Institute and the staffing needs of this new body.
The Marine Institute Act, 1989, makes provision for the
establishment of the Institute and includes 'non-tidal'
waters in its definition of 'marine'. The Minister for
the Marine has responsibility for the establishment of the
Institute and for implementing the operational and
organisational changes that may be required. Until such
decisions are made, the Board is not in a position to
consider regrading the claimant.
2. In accordance with Section 32 of the Fisheries Act,
1980, the Board is obliged to introduce a Staff Scheme
which will set out the conditions of employment and
remunerations and conditions of service of the different
grades of staff of the Central and Regional Boards. It
would be inappropriate for the Board to consider the claim
except in the context of a Staff Scheme in accordance with
the 1980 Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds there is considerable merit in
the claimant's case.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the tardy manner in which
this case has been handled.
It is clear to the Court that the claimant has made available
in a dedicated and loyal manner his considerable talents and
expertise. One would expect that in the interest of providing
the type and quality of service required, the responsible
authorities would have ensured that the claimant's situation
would have been considered and dealt with in an equitable and
expeditious way. It is the view of the Court that this
unacceptable situation should be addressed immediately.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claim be conceded in
full (i.e. that the claimant be regraded with effect from July,
1988 title of the job to be agreed).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
26th February, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman