Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92726 Case Number: LCR14095 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the regrading of secretaries employed by the Association.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Taking all the circumstances into account the Court does not
consider that the differences in responsibilities as between one
secretary and another are such as to warrant different gradings
nor does it consider it reasonable that over such a disparate
group changes can be brought about on a cost-neutral basis.
The Court recommends that all secretaries be graded to E.O. level,
and having regard to the date of the original claim that the
change be brought about having regard to the earliest date
possible under the terms of P.E.S.P.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92726 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the regrading of secretaries employed
by the Association.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 8 secretaries employed by the Association in each of
its Colleges. The post was established in the mid-1970s and was
graded as clerical assistant in the Civil Service.
3. The Union has been pursuing a claim on behalf of the
secretaries for re-grading since 1986 and also requested that a
job evaluation be carried out. In June, 1991 the Union claimed
that the workers concerned should be graded at executive officer
level in view of the range of duties and responsibilities attached
to the post. The claim and the request for a job evaluation were
passed on to Teagasc which, although not the direct employer of
the workers concerned, is the body responsible for their pay and
conditions. Teagasc acknowledged the claim and informed the
Association that it was examining it in consultation with the
Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Food.
4. Subsequently a job evaluation exercise was carried out by
Teagasc which assessed and compared the work carried out by the
Association's secretaries to the work performed by Teagasc's
secretaries. The job evaluation was carried out and submitted to
the Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Food for
consideration.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
5th August, 1992. A number of conciliation conferences were held
at which the job evaluation report was made available. The report
recommended that three of the secretaries be regraded at executive
officer and the remaining five be regraded at clerical officer.
The Association informed the Union that the Departments of Finance
and Agriculture and Food were prepared to consider the
implementation of the report provided the proposals were strictly
within the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.), i.e.,
(a) 3% of the payroll cost of the group concerned,
(b) payable not before 1st January, 1993,
(c) cost neutral,
(d) not reviewed before 1st July, 1993.
The Union rejected the proposals and as no agreement could be
reached the Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred
the dispute to the Labour Court on the 14th December, 1992 for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 29th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned perform executive officer duties and
have done so for a long number of years (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The proposal that the workers be treated as a group in
order to implement the report is unworkable as the workers are
employed by separate employers in disparate locations.
3. The claim pre-dates both the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) and the P.E.S.P. and therefore falls to be
considered under Clause 4 of the P.E.S.P.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Association has met the Union's request to have the
posts examined and appropriately graded.
2. The Association is prepared to formulate proposals for
consideration by the Departments of Finance and Agriculture
and Food for the implementation of the reports recommendations
in accordance with Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
3. These conditions apply equally to all other employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Taking all the circumstances into account the Court does not
consider that the differences in responsibilities as between one
secretary and another are such as to warrant different gradings
nor does it consider it reasonable that over such a disparate
group changes can be brought about on a cost-neutral basis.
The Court recommends that all secretaries be graded to E.O. level,
and having regard to the date of the original claim that the
change be brought about having regard to the earliest date
possible under the terms of P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
25th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.