Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92674 Case Number: LCR13843 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A claim for the regrading of Administrative Assistants from grade III to grade IV.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the only satisfactory means
of dealing with a difference of opinion on the grading position in
this case is by means of a Job Assessment as proposed by the
Union. In the light of events the Board has the choice of seeking
an independent assessment or relying on the assessment carried out
on the Union's behalf but, having regard to the length of time it
has taken its process this claim, it should make its choice
without further delay.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92674 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13843
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim for the regrading of Administrative Assistants from
grade III to grade IV.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Board was established in 1980 to manage, conserve
develop and promote inland fisheries. The claim is in respect
of 11 administrative workers who are employed in the 7
regional fisheries boards.
2. A staff scheme was signed by the parties in December,
1986. In November, 1989, the Union lodged a claim to have
Administrative Assistants regraded from grade III to grade IV.
The basis of the claim was new duties arising out of the
non-implementation of the administrative staff structure as
negotiated under the staff scheme. Other issues in support of
the claim were new duties arising out of co-operatives,
angling licences, I.F.I. and E.R.D.F. schemes and safety. The
claim was rejected by the Board.
3. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 6th November, 1991.
The Union sought an independent evaluation of the work of the
claimants. This was rejected by the Board. The Union
subsequently had its own assessment carried out.
4. On 21st October, 1992, the Board was informed that the
claimants would not be co-operating with "exceptional" duties
such as the preparation of electoral rolls. The claim was
again referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 30th October, 1992. The
parties could not agree on a framework for a settlement and
the claim was referred to the Labour Court on 2nd November,
1992. A Labour Court investigation took place on 3rd
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 11 workers are graded at grade III in the organisation
of the Board. They report directly to the Regional Manager
who is paid on the civil service Assistant Principal (Finance)
scale. The claim was first made in 1989 and has not yet been
considered objectively by Management. The claim will
withstand any objective analysis on the basis of
responsibility, skill and competence, reporting relationship
and comparison within the Central and Regional Fisheries
Board. The cost of concession is in the region of #23,000 and
there can be no repercussive claims.
2. The agreed Staff Scheme has not been implemented by the
Board. The scheme provided for the creation of the post of
grade IV Administrative Assistant. The new grade was never
created and as a result extra duties have been assumed by the
claimants. The administrative structure represented a key
element of the staff scheme. The Board has accused the Union
of not abiding by the terms of the Staff Scheme in the
preparation of electoral rolls. This is the scheme which it
has failed to honour to the cost of the claimants.
3. The workers have been frustrated by the Board in their
attempts to process the claim. The intransigence of the Board
forced the Union to undertake its own assessment of the
claimant's work by its industrial engineering department. The
conclusions of the assessment clearly vindicates the Union's
position (details supplied) that the claimant's work is of a
higher level than grade III.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board received a claim from the Union in November,
1989 for the regrading of the claimants on the basis of new
duties (details supplied). The Board considered the claim but
could not accept it based on the arguments put forward. The
staff scheme, agreed in 1987, set out the duties of the
claimants. There is no evidence of any change since then.
2. Prior to the investigation there was no argument put
forward regarding the grade IV positions. The duties planned
for this grade do not relate to grade III duties and the Board
is seeking to fill the grade IV positions at the moment. A
specific part of the duties of Administrative Assistant grade
III is the preparation of electoral rolls. This was agreed in
the staff scheme and has been carried out by the claimants on
two previous occasions.
3. The claimants are not being asked to carry out any work
not agreed in the staff scheme. The scheme is recently
negotiated and must be complied with, particularly its
provisions in respect of industrial relations procedures. The
Union's non-observence of these procedures has caused
considerable difficulties for the Board (details supplied).
If the duties of the claimants were to significantly alter the
Board would re-consider its position on the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the only satisfactory means
of dealing with a difference of opinion on the grading position in
this case is by means of a Job Assessment as proposed by the
Union. In the light of events the Board has the choice of seeking
an independent assessment or relying on the assessment carried out
on the Union's behalf but, having regard to the length of time it
has taken its process this claim, it should make its choice
without further delay.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
12th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.