Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92368 Case Number: LCR13760 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the implementation of a job evaluation scheme for determining promotions.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and oral evidence presented
by the parties, the Court recommends that the parties commence,
without delay, direct discussions, in the context of Clause 3 of
the P.E.S.P. on promotions for technicians, to become effective on
1/1/93.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92368 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13760
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 36(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the implementation of a job evaluation
scheme for determining promotions.
BACKGROUND:
2. There is in existence within the Authority an agreed job
evaluation scheme for determining promotions. The scheme was
originally agreed during the 1970's and was reviewed and revised
in 1980, recommending on promotions in 1984. The last promotions,
for Technical Staff, under the scheme took place in 1986. The
Union contended that due to a decrease in staff over the years,
arising from voluntary severance schemes, the technical staff are
carrying out duties appropriate to a higher grade and for which
they receive no recompense. It claims that a further job
evaluation exercise must be carried out in order to take into
account these changed circumstances and to implement promotions as
agreed under the scheme. The Authority states that it is not in a
position to implement the job evaluation scheme. It acknowledged
the Union's claim for promotions but claims that the issue must be
dealt with in the context of Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on 11th
September, 1991 and 15th June, 1992 at which agreement was not
reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on 25th June,
1992 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on 24th August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union claims that a job evaluation exercise should
be carried out regarding the promotion structure and should
subsequently be looked at in the context of the National
Agreements. If the Authority is not in a position to
implement the agreed scheme, it is incumbent on it to propose
an alternative promotional structure.
2. All efforts by the Union to progress the situation have
failed, despite numerous discussions with the Authority. Over
the years the workers have carried out the work of higher
grades and have achieved a high level of efficiency. They
have done this without any reward and are justified in seeking
the re-instatement of promotions.
3. Other groups such as clerical/administrative and
advisory staff have had their promotional position examined
and assessed recently. In both cases promotions arose out of
an independent assessment. The Union is willing to consider
the appointment of an independent assessor to make
recommendations on promotions within technical grades.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Authority recognises the need for a promotional
structure for technical staff and has been involved in
numerous discussion regarding the same. It had not reached
the stage of putting any offer to the Union when the P.E.S.P.
came into operation. The Authority contends that as a result
a job evaluation scheme is no longer appropriate to deal with
the question of promotions and that all negotiations and
discussions must take place in the context of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P.
2. It has been the policy of the Authority, since its
establishment in 1988, to try to improve the grading
structures of all staff categories. Already the structure
within clerical and administrative grades has been improved
and the restructuring within advisory and training grades is
currently being dealt with under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. These
grades took priority over the technical staff because of the
lack of an existing structure within them.
3. Due to the severe financial difficulties of the
Authority and the Government policy on public sector pay and
promotions, Clause 3 is the mechanism under which
restructuring must be negotiated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions and oral evidence presented
by the parties, the Court recommends that the parties commence,
without delay, direct discussions, in the context of Clause 3 of
the P.E.S.P. on promotions for technicians, to become effective on
1/1/93.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th September, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
A. O'S/U.S. ---------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain.