Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92545 Case Number: LCR13848 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - THE IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the grading of four clerical/administrative posts.
Recommendation:
8. The Court notes the failure of the Company to set up an agreed
grading appeal mechanism as recommended by the Labour Court in
Recommendation No. 11672.
In the absence of such a mechanism and noting the Unions
contention that the four posts which are the subject of this
dispute have changed substantially since the McLoughlin survey the
Court recommends that the I.P.A. (McLoughlin) should be requested
to examine these posts as of now with a view to establishing their
correct gradings.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92545 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13848
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
THE IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT
1. Dispute concerning the grading of four clerical/administrative
posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. Teagasc was established in 1988 by statute by merging two
previously autonomous bodies - A.C.O.T. and the Agricultural
Institute. It is the Agricultural and Food Development Authority
entrusted with the development of all aspects of agricultural
activity in Ireland. Its structure is decentralised with six
operating divisions throughout the country.
3. In 1989 the Authority commissioned the Institute of Public
Administration (I.P.A.) to carry out a comprehensive study of the
posts in the clerical and administrative areas. Following the
issue of this report (called the McLoughlin Report) approximately
50 posts were upgraded including 2 of the 4 posts involved in this
claim.
4. The Union lodged a claim for the upgrading of 4 clerical posts
on the basis that the workload and responsibilities have increased
since the issue of the McLoughlin report and in one case, the job
did not exist at the time of the review. The Authority rejected
the claim on the grounds that errors in the I.P.A. report, if any,
were minimal in their extent and that increases in
responsibilities over the last two years were not of a significant
nature.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
10th February, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 10th
June, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission with the
consent of the parties, referred the dispute on 8th September,
1992 to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Court hearing took place on 28th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Following the issue of the I.P.A. (McLoughlin) report 30
workers were dissatisfied with its findings. Of these 26 are
appealing the reports findings. However, they are unable to
process their appeals as the Authority has failed to put an
Appeals Procedure in place as recommended by the I.P.A. report
and L.C.R. 11672 dated 1st February, 1987.
2. The posts of the four workers involved in this claim have
changed considerably since the issue of the report. Their
workload has increased and they have additional
responsibilities (details supplied to the Court). They are
not appealing the reports findings but seeking upgrading on
the basis of the changes which have occurred since the review.
3. The claims are not prohibited under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) as they are individual
claims and relate to workers receiving the appropriate grading
and salary for the duties carried out. Similar claims have
been processed in other areas of the Public Sector.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The review carried out by the I.P.A. was extremely
comprehensive and professional in nature. Errors if any, can
be only minimal in extent and increases in responsibilities
over the past two years have not been of a significant nature.
It is a normal feature of organisation that at any moment in
time a number of posts will be either over or undergraded to a
small extent. This should be accepted by all particularly in
view of the comprehensive review which took place 2 years ago.
2. The Authority implemented the upgradings recommended by
the I.P.A.'s report at an immediate cost of #50,000 (annual
cost #200,000). This has been done against a background of
severe financial constraints. The Authority should not now be
confronted by cost increasing claims of this nature
particularly so soon after such a favourable grading exercise
has been implemented.
3. Under the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the
operation in the Public Service of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. unions
can pursue either a restructuring/productivity deal or a
traditional pay claim. Either claim would be subject to a 3%
ceiling and must have a cost neutral effect on payroll costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court notes the failure of the Company to set up an agreed
grading appeal mechanism as recommended by the Labour Court in
Recommendation No. 11672.
In the absence of such a mechanism and noting the Unions
contention that the four posts which are the subject of this
dispute have changed substantially since the McLoughlin survey the
Court recommends that the I.P.A. (McLoughlin) should be requested
to examine these posts as of now with a view to establishing their
correct gradings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
13th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.