Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93267 Case Number: LCR14121 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE UNION |
Claim concerning the upgrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has noted in particular the circumstances and background which
gave rise to this dispute.
In view of the recommendations given by senior officers prior to
the formation of Teagasc that the claimant be promoted and noting
the specific guarantees as to maintaining conditions of employment
for all transferees the Court is satisfied that there is merit in
the claim. However, the Court does not consider that the claimant
should be appointed to the grade of Senior Research Officer in
view of the conditions which apply to that grade.
The Court recommends that the claimant be paid an allowance of
#2,500 p.a. on top of his existing scale from 1st June, 1991.
This allowance is to be considered strictly on a "red circle"
basis.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93267 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14121
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning the upgrading of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim was first discussed with the Company on 24th
July, 1991. It was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 5th June,
1992. No progress was possible and a Rights Commissioner's
investigation was scheduled to be held on 26th February, 1993.
Teagasc did not attend the investigation and it was cancelled.
2. The worker is a technician with Teagasc at the National
Food Centre and is paid on the Principal Experimental Officer
(PEO) pay scale which is the highest technician rate within
Teagasc. There are 4 other technicians on the same scale.
Prior to the formation of Teagasc, the worker was employed by
Eolas as a food technologist. In March, 1988, he was
transferred to An Foras Taluntais (AFT) and assimilated onto
the PEO pay scale. In September, 1988, AFT was one of 2
organisations which were amalgamated to form Teagasc.
3. The Union's claim is that the worker should be regraded
onto Teagasc's Senior Research Officer scale. The claim is
based on the fact that the worker was recommended for
promotion in February, 1987 while he was employed by Eolas.
The Government Promotions Embargo of March, 1987 prevented the
promotion from taking place. The fact that the worker was
under consideration for promotion was recognised by the
personnel officer of AFT in March, 1988. The Personnel
Officer stated that promotion above the grade of PEO was not
possible in AFT but there was some possibility that with the
formation of Teagasc, the position might be favourably
altered.
4. Teagasc rejected the Union's claim for the upgrading of
the worker to Senior Research Officer as he did not possess an
honours degree which was the minimum requirement for entry to
the grade. By letter dated 20th April, 1993, the Union sought
a Labour Court investigation into its claim under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 4th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been strongly recommended on 3 separate
occasions for promotion. Applications for promotion have been
put to the Departments of Agriculture and Finance but were
rejected. It is certain that the worker would have been
promoted was it not for the 1987 promotions embargo. The
worker would have joined AFT at Senior Research Officer level.
2. The fact that promotions to the research grade in Teagasc
require an honours degree have no relevance to the worker as
no such pre-requisite applied in Eolas. The worker's
promotional problem is a result of the amalgamation of
organisation to form Teagasc. Prior to the amalgamation, the
workers were guaranteed that there would be no changes in
their conditions of employment. It has been accepted by
Teagasc that the work involved warrants the higher grade
(details supplied).
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Teagasc is not in a position to place the worker on the
Senior Research Officer scale. The minimum and essential
requirement for entry to the Research Officer grade has always
been an honours degree. The worker does not possess a degree.
This pre-requisite for entry must be continued to maintain the
scientific reputation of Teagasc. The honours degree
requirement has been in existance since the establishment of
AFT in 1958.
2. The worker is graded at the highest technician grade with
4 others. There are 257 other technicians in the next grade
below that of the worker. Promotion to the Research Officer
grade has always been on the basis of the worker having
achieved an honours degree. This is the only acceptable
mechanism for promotion. If Teagasc were to promote the
worker, it would act as a disincentive to other technicians
and likely lead to repercussive claims. Teagasc is not
willing to consider the payment of an allowance as it would be
seen as another way of implementing a promotion.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has noted in particular the circumstances and background which
gave rise to this dispute.
In view of the recommendations given by senior officers prior to
the formation of Teagasc that the claimant be promoted and noting
the specific guarantees as to maintaining conditions of employment
for all transferees the Court is satisfied that there is merit in
the claim. However, the Court does not consider that the claimant
should be appointed to the grade of Senior Research Officer in
view of the conditions which apply to that grade.
The Court recommends that the claimant be paid an allowance of
#2,500 p.a. on top of his existing scale from 1st June, 1991.
This allowance is to be considered strictly on a "red circle"
basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
25th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.