Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92151 Case Number: LCR13643 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the introduction and implementation of a grading and salary structure for clerical, secretarial and administrative staff.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties involved in this dispute.
The Court is of the view that the basis for settlement of the
dispute which has a long history is contained in the University
offer of the 11th February, 1992. With regard to pay the Court
recommends that the salary scales attached to that letter be
amended by the extension of the scales proposed for Grade 4 & 5
by two increments at the top of the scale and the extension of
the scale for Grade 9 by 3 Increments at the top of the scale.
With regard to a Review Mechanism the Court recommends that the
University agree to the Union's claim to include a
representative of the Governing Body in the proposed system of
review.
The Court notes the University's commitment to implementation
date as set out in Para 6 of letter dated 6th February, 1992.
The Court recommends acceptance of the above proposals by all
parties in settlement of this claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92151 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13643
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction and implementation of a
grading and salary structure for clerical, secretarial and
administrative staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1983 a number of claims including a claim for regrading
of secretarial staff, library assistants and administrative
staff were the subject of Labour Court Recommendation LCR8670.
The Court recommended that the parties engage the Irish
Productivity Centre (I.P.C.) to assist in a review of the
grading claim. A job evaluation committee was set up under the
aegis of the I.P.C. with representatives from staff and
management. It was not within the terms of reference of the
committee to devise or recommend salary scales. The final
report of the committee was completed in July, 1990 and accepted
by the parties. The report contained two main recommendations:-
(i) the existing 5 grade structure should be replaced by a
9 grade integrated structure for the range of
administrative and secretarial posts reviewed (the
preliminary Report of the IPC grading expert had
recommended 6 grades, 3 with two levels).
(ii) an annual grading review to assess cases where
grading is sought. Membership of the grading committee
would consist of 3 members nominated by the University, 3
members nominated by the Union and a chairperson nominated
by the University after consultation with the Union.
In November, 1990 the University submitted the report through
the Higher Education Authority to the Department of Education
for approval. In April, 1991 the University introduced salary
scales for the 9 grades recommended in the I.P.C. report.
The salary scales were subsequently withdrawn as the Department
of Education did not sanction full implementation of the I.P.C.
report. No agreement could be reached at local level
discussions in regard to salary scales and the full
implementation of the I.P.C. report. The dispute was referred
on 11th September, 1991 to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 10th October, 1991 and
26th November, 1991 and under cover of a letter dated 11th
February, 1992 to the Industrial Relations Officer the
University detailed the final package on offer. The full
details of the package are outlined in letters dated 6th
February, 1992 and 24th January, 1992 from the University to the
Union (details supplied to the Court). The final offer in
relation to salary scales as approved by the Departments of
Education and Finance is as follows:
University of Limerick
1-1-91
PROPOSED SALARY SCALES
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9
8,038 9,377 10,493 12,250 13,525 13,930 17,010 18,102 20,061
8,284 9,747 10,869 12,675 13,950 14,730 17,518 18,589 21,166
8,528 10,118 11,196 13,100 14,375 15,539 18,023 19,079 22,272
8,780 10,492 11,520 13,525 14,800 16,213 18,534 19,571 23,382
9,031 10,869 11,941 13,950 15,225 16,881 19,038 20,062 24,492
9,249 11,195 12,269 14,375 15,650 17,579 19,555 20,556
9,470 11,521 12,596 14,800 16,075 18,299 20,078 21,747
9,688 11,846 12,916 18,991 20,596 22,771
9,911
10,133
10,337
The final offer in relation to the review mechanism is that a
management review committee, consisting of the Director of
finance, a Dean or Divisional Director and the Personnel Manager
will examine and arbitrate on all claims for review. The Union
rejected the University's final offer and is seeking full
implementation of I.P.C. report and implementation of the salary
scales introduced by the University in April, 1991 which were
subsequently withdrawn (details of the salary scales for
individual staff supplied to the Court but not supplied in
tabular form).
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 10th March, 1992
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 3rd April,
1992. The Department of Finance and the Department of Education
were represented at the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. After the issue of LCR8670 there was a considerable
delay before the joint job evaluation was completed in
July, 1990. The recommendations in the I.P.C. report were
totally agreed and accepted by the parties in late, 1990.
In April, 1991 the University arbitrarily introduced salary
scales for all the grades recommended in the new nine
tiered grading structure. The University then arbitrarily
withdrew the new salary scales. The Union's claim is for
the implementation of the I.P.C. report together with the
salary scales introduced by the University in April, 1991.
2. The salary scales offered by the University are not
compatible with those introduced in April, 1991 and are
lower than those paid to counterparts in other Universities
(details supplied to the Court). The implementation of the
claim should not be subject to clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) because it is
the completion of the processing of a claim which commenced
in 1984.
3. In relation to an on-going review mechanism the offer
of the University falls short of that recommended in the
I.P.C. report. The review committee should be independent
with representation from the Governing Body of the
University.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The grading structure as recommended by the IPC report
has been accepted in full. The salary scales offered give
very substantial improvements to the holders of posts which
have been upgraded, particularly to those who have been
upgraded to grades 4, 5, 8 and 9, (the newly created
grades.)
2. The package on offer has been achieved in a period of
national pay restraint in both the public and private
sectors. It must be viewed in the context of current
developments and in particular the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress. The offer, which involves the
upgrading of over 50% of the staff surveyed and provides an
excellent career path for all, is a fair and reasonable one
when viewed in the context of the current developments in
pay in the public sector.
3. The claim falls to be dealt with in accordance with
clause 3 of the Pay Agreement which forms part of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress. In this
respect the offer made to the Union provides for
implementation of the offer from the earliest date
permitted under clause 3, i.e. the 1st January, 1993.
4. The offer as it relates to the on-going review
mechanism provides a system for periodic review using the
grade features identified in the IPC report as benchmarks.
The system should enable decisions on regrading to be made
and agreed without difficulty. Management must retain the
right to decide on the appropriate grading.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties involved in this dispute.
The Court is of the view that the basis for settlement of the
dispute which has a long history is contained in the University
offer of the 11th February, 1992. With regard to pay the Court
recommends that the salary scales attached to that letter be
amended by the extension of the scales proposed for Grade 4 & 5
by two increments at the top of the scale and the extension of
the scale for Grade 9 by 3 Increments at the top of the scale.
With regard to a Review Mechanism the Court recommends that the
University agree to the Union's claim to include a
representative of the Governing Body in the proposed system of
review.
The Court notes the University's commitment to implementation
date as set out in Para 6 of letter dated 6th February, 1992.
The Court recommends acceptance of the above proposals by all
parties in settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
8th May, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.