Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92365 Case Number: LCR13757 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the promotion of research staff.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the proposals which emanated at Conciliation
represent the best way to resolve the dispute. The Court
accordingly recommends that the parties enter into immediate
discussions as outlined in the letter of L.R.C. dated 14/10/91.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92365 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13757
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the promotion of research staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Up to 1986 promotion of research staff to principal research
officer and senior principal research officer (pro/spro) was made
yearly on the basis of scientific merit.
3. There have been no promotions to senior level since 1986. The
Union, raised the issue of promotions with the Authority in 1989
and 1990. In February, 1991 the Authority informed the Union that
a list of people deemed suitable for promotion had been submitted
to the Department of Finance for approval. In May, 1991 the
Authority informed the Union that little progress had been made.
4. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Relations
Commission on 12th June, 1991. A conciliation conference was held
on 6th September, 1991. The Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.)
put forward the following proposal:
"Having regard to the fact that promotion in the case of
Research Staff is based on scientific merit, and that no
promotions have taken place for six years, there is at this
stage a clear cut case for a number of promotions.
It is proposed that the parties enter into immediate
discussions with a view to agreeing an appropriate ratio of
senior/junior research grades and that the necessary
promotions be made from amongst those staff deemed
scientifically qualified for promotion".
This proposal was acceptable to the Union. The Authority
indicated that it was prepared to enter into discussions with the
Union on restructuring the Research Area within the terms of
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.). As this did not meet the Union's aspirations the
Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred the dispute
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing
took place on 18th August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. There have been no promotions since 1986 and as a
consequence the senior/junior staff ratio has fallen
dramatically (details supplied to the Court).
2. The discontinuance of promotions to senior research level
is affecting staff morale and threatens the effectiveness of
the organisation.
3. The embargo on promotions has been lifted in other areas
within the Public Sector.
4. The Union asks the Court to recommend that a number of
promotions should be made at this stage. These promotions
would continue to be based on scientific merit.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Since its inception in 1988 the Authority has been
endeavouring to improve the grading structures for all staff
categories within the constraints imposed on the organisation
arising from severe financial difficulties and Government
policy on public sector pay and promotions.
2. The Authority is prepared to enter into negotiations on
restructuring under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. It has reached
agreement with other categories of staff under this clause.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the proposals which emanated at Conciliation
represent the best way to resolve the dispute. The Court
accordingly recommends that the parties enter into immediate
discussions as outlined in the letter of L.R.C. dated 14/10/91.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
7th September, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.