Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92437 Case Number: LCR13870 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE (M.S.F. |
A dispute concerning a claim for a salary increase on behalf of:- (a) 2 environmental control officers. (b) 2 technical advisors.
Recommendation:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICERS:
9. While it is clear from the evidence presented by the parties
that the work-mix of the claimants has changed considerably, the
Court does not consider that the Union has established a
compelling case that the level of responsibilities resulting from
the change has risen to a degree which would merit upgrading.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
TECHNICAL ADVISORS:
Having considered all the aspects of this claim the Court is of
the view that the offer made by the Board in its letter of 2nd
July, 1991 was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court,
therefore, recommends that the Board re-instate the offer and that
the Union accept it in settlement of this claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13870
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a claim for a salary increase on behalf
of:-
(a) 2 environmental control officers.
(b) 2 technical advisors.
BACKGROUND:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICERS:
2. 1. The two workers involved were appointed as Assistant
Land Valuers/Negotiators in 1980 in the company and continued
in that capacity until 1990. At that time a major
re-organisation took place in the Company, with the result
that the Company was split up into separate divisions. A
study undertaken by the Company identified a trend towards a
changing role for the Assistant Land Valuers/Negotiators.
They were becoming increasingly involved in dealing with
environmental matters as the purchasing role diminished.
2. An environmental control department was established
within the civil engineering section and in 1990 two positions
for environmental control officers were advertised and
following interviews the two claimants were appointed.
3. There are extra responsibilities associated with these
positions but no extra remuneration is paid. The issue was
discussed with the chief civil engineer and the two people
involved were under the impression that these positions were
promotional posts.
4. It was clearly indicated to the claimants that their
existing salary scale would be maintained and they were
granted two increments on that scale.
TECHNICAL ADVISORS:
3. 1. This claim is on behalf of 2 Technical Advisors (one of
whom has retired while negotiations have been taking place)
employed by the peat energy division of Bord na Mona. The
technical advisors act as team leaders for the surveying teams
of the Company which are part of the civil engineering
section. The surveyors who formed the team were awarded a 11
1/2% increase by the Labour Court in 1984 as a settlement of
their claim for the use of new technology and higher output.
2. The claimants at that time sought an increase in salary
in line with the adjustment granted to surveyors in 1987.
There was no movement on the claim until 1991 when the two
people involved were appointed technical advisors with an
allowance of #808 per annum. This was rejected by the
claimants. The Company then informed the workers by letter
dated 2nd July, 1992 that they had been regraded from scale 2C
to scale 1D(2) with additional responsibilities. This was not
accepted and was subsequently cancelled by the Company.
4. 1. Both issues were the subject of a conciliation
conference on the 11th June, 1992 but agreement could not be
reached. The issues were referred to the Labour Court on the
23rd July, 1992 and investigated by the Court on the 29th
October, 1992 in Offaly.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICERS:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The duties associated with these positions are fairly
unique and it is difficult to find suitable comparisons for
the range of engineering and legal knowledge required in the
job as well as the negotiating and personal skills involved in
the carrying out of the duties.
2. The most suitable comparison for these positions is with
the divisional acquisition manager (level 2) and the
environmental officer in Coillte Teo. The claimants carry out
a range of duties which span both of these positions, either
of which are considerably higher-paid. The other comparison
in terms of land acquisition responsibilities is with the Land
Commission. An inspector (grade 2) has comparable levels of
responsibility and is also higher paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The overall level of responsibility attaching to the
positions has not changed. The environmental control officers
report to the resource manager and also have the support of
the head of civil engineering and the technical services
manager.
2. The change of title merely reflects an increase in
emphasis on environmental control and consequential changes in
mix of job output rather than increased responsibility.
3. The claimants took a case for regrading to the Court in
1986 and having engaged the services of a technical assessor
and considered his report, the Court recommended against
concession of the claim (LCR10867).
4. The Company are no longer purchasing land and,
therefore, duties in relation to environmental control replace
the purchasing duties and cannot be regarded as additional.
5. Any concession of regrading for the claimants will lead
to consequential claims for other employees on the same grade.
6. The aim of the change programme initiated since 1988 is
to reduce costs in order to maintain competitiveness within
the energy market. Concession of claims such as this one has
the effect of increasing costs.
7. In implementing the results of the Overhead Cost Review
the peat energy division has targeted much of the savings on
the non-pay elements of overheads such as insurance, travel
expenses and training. However, any increase in costs will
lead to increased pressure on the jobs area.
8. External comparisons for this category of employee are
difficult due to the almost unique nature of their duties.
TECHNICAL ADVISORS:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Technical Advisors/Team Leaders agreed verbally with
the then Chief Civil Engineer that they would receive the same
increase as the surveyors i.e. 11 1/2%. All previous claims
were dealt with and accepted on this basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The duties and responsibilities of the claimants have
not increased and, therefore, regrading is not warranted.
2. The requirement for surveying services is reducing and
any cost increase can only lead to a further reduction in the
level of this service which can be sold to other divisions
outside of the peat energy division. At one stage the company
had twenty seven surveyors in its employment. This has now
reduced to five.
3. Concession of this claim would have repercussive effects
on surveyors and other grades on the technical assistant 2C
scale including environmental control officers and
draughtsmen/technicians.
4. Concession of this claim will result in an increase in
overhead costs at a time when every effort is being made to
reduce these costs.
5. The post of technical advisor is correctly graded in
line with other positions on the technical assistant 2C level.
RECOMMENDATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICERS:
9. While it is clear from the evidence presented by the parties
that the work-mix of the claimants has changed considerably, the
Court does not consider that the Union has established a
compelling case that the level of responsibilities resulting from
the change has risen to a degree which would merit upgrading.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
TECHNICAL ADVISORS:
Having considered all the aspects of this claim the Court is of
the view that the offer made by the Board in its letter of 2nd
July, 1991 was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court,
therefore, recommends that the Board re-instate the offer and that
the Union accept it in settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th November, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
P O'C/U.S. -----------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.