Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92496 Case Number: LCR13863 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TRALEE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (V.E.C.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the upgrading of a worker's post.
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence given at the hearing, the Court does not find
any confirmation that an approved vacancy for an Agricultural
Technician existed in January, 1970 or that the Committee sought
approval from the Department of Education for such a position for
the claimant. In the circumstances, the use of the terms
"Agricultural Technician" in the minute of the Committee's meeting
of 26th January, 1970 is inexplicable as the Committee would not
have been empowered to make such an appointment.
The Committee has argued that the intent of the minute of 1970 was
simply to confirm the whole-time nature of the claimants caretaker
position and to approve a weekly payment to him for extra hours
and this view is given credence by the total rejection of the
claim up to 1984 and by the fact that the issue was only raised
intermittently by the claimant and at very long intervals.
Nevertheless, the use of the title "agricultural technician" by
whatever circumstances in the 1970 minute did give rise to
expectations by the claimant.
The Court does not find grounds to concede the Union claim but
recommends that the issue be finally disposed of by an ex-gratia
payment of #1,500 to the claimant.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92496 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13863
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: TRALEE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (V.E.C.)
DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND FINANCE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the upgrading of a worker's post.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed to the position of
caretaker in the rural studies department at the Regional
Technical College, Tralee by Tralee V.E.C. in 1968. In January,
1970, the V.E.C passed a resolution ratifying the worker's post as
agricultural technician, however, no change in his employment
status was effected. In 1973, the Chief Executive Officer
(C.E.O.) confirmed the worker's position as caretaker. The worker
tried unsuccessfully to have his position clarified. In October,
1984, the then acting C.E.O. wrote to the Department of Education
requesting a decision on the V.E.C's resolution of 1970. The
Department did not reply claiming that the letter was not received
and is not recorded on file. The present C.E.O. wrote to the
Department in January, 1990 on behalf of the V.E.C., seeking the
regrading of the worker's post to that of craft assistant. The
Department stated that the worker was not eligible for appointment
to the post as he did not hold the required qualifications. The
V.E.C appealed this decision but the Department reiterated that
the worker was ineligible due to lack of formal qualifications.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the
18th December, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the
15th April, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 19th August, 1992. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the
30th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The V.E.C. ratified the worker's position as an
agricultural technician in 1970. To this date no
authoritative body has rejected or rescinded or qualified, in
any respect, his appointment. The Department of Education
were specifically requested to respond to the V.E.C.'s
decision to appoint the worker by the then C.E.O. in his
letter to the Department of October, 1984. The current C.E.O.
again raised the issue with the Department in 1990. The
Department has made no comment on the V.E.C.'s resolution of
1970, other than to state that the worker does not possess the
required qualifications.
2. The Union contends that the V.E.C. were entitled to
appoint the worker to the position of agricultural technician
in 1970. The V.E.C. decision was made prior to the revised
agreement on pay and conditions issued by the Department in
May, 1980. The worker has been unfairly treated. The
situation could be rectified if the worker was appointed to
the position of craft assistant.
DEPARTMENTS'/V.E.C.'s ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was appointed to the position of
caretaker in 1968, Tralee V.E.C sought and was given, approval
by the Department for this appointment. The resolution of the
V.E.C. in 1970 appointed the worker as "agricultural
technician", a grade which does not exist now and there is no
record of such a grade ever having been in existence. He was
given an allowance in respect of week-end work. The allowance
at the present time amounts to #58.19. The worker still
receives this allowance, though there is now no requirement
for him to do week-end work. The V.E.C. made no request in
1970 to have the appointment approved by the Department. At a
meeting between the worker and the C.E.O. in 1973, his
position was recorded as caretaker.
2. The establishment of the posts of caretaker, craft
assistant, and technician in V.E.C.'S are subject to
Department of Education sanction under the 1930 Vocational
Education Act and only posts which have been sanctioned may be
filled by the V.E.C. Specific qualifications are required for
the posts (details supplied to the Court). There is no
mechanism whereby the worker concerned can be upgraded in the
way claimed by the Union. The worker does not possess the
required qualifications. If the claim is conceded it could
have widespread repercussive effects within the education area
and across the wider public sector.
RECOMMENDATION
5. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence given at the hearing, the Court does not find
any confirmation that an approved vacancy for an Agricultural
Technician existed in January, 1970 or that the Committee sought
approval from the Department of Education for such a position for
the claimant. In the circumstances, the use of the terms
"Agricultural Technician" in the minute of the Committee's meeting
of 26th January, 1970 is inexplicable as the Committee would not
have been empowered to make such an appointment.
The Committee has argued that the intent of the minute of 1970 was
simply to confirm the whole-time nature of the claimants caretaker
position and to approve a weekly payment to him for extra hours
and this view is given credence by the total rejection of the
claim up to 1984 and by the fact that the issue was only raised
intermittently by the claimant and at very long intervals.
Nevertheless, the use of the title "agricultural technician" by
whatever circumstances in the 1970 minute did give rise to
expectations by the claimant.
The Court does not find grounds to concede the Union claim but
recommends that the issue be finally disposed of by an ex-gratia
payment of #1,500 to the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th November, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
T O'D/U.S. ----------------
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.