Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94480 Case Number: AD9490 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - A WORKER |
An appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 189/94 concerning a claim for regrading.
Recommendation:
" I feel that this case can be best resolved by a once-off
payment to the claimant without precedent or prejudice and
her acceptance of this sum in full and final settlement of
all her outstanding claims since 1980 save her claim for
regrading which she should now allow go through the job
evaluation system under the capable hands of Mr Michael
Hannon of the Irish Productivity Centre.
I recommend that the claimant in the unique historical
circumstances of this case should receive the sum of #1,000
without prejudice or precedent".
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of
the industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 21st November, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The person who previously held the position of the
worker concerned was paid an assistant librarian's salary
(currently #13, 515 - #19,548 per annum).
2. It was established at the Rights Commissioner's hearing
that the worker who previously held the position and the
claimant were employed doing indentical work. It was also
established that during a period of absence in 1990 (Sept to
Dec) the worker was replaced by an assistant librarian.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation does not
adequately compensate the worker concerned for the difference
in remuneration paid to other staff who do similar work.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker re-submitted her application for
re-grading in March, 1993, it was too late for consideration
as the work of the Assessment Board was nearing completion.
She was informed that her application would be dealt with in
due course under whatever procedure was agreed for dealing
with outstanding applications.
2. The College is currently in the process of establishing
a new Grading Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Hannon,
I.P.C.. The worker's position is among those to be evaluated.
All staff covered by the evaluation exercise have been asked
to submit job descriptions for evaluation. In the
circumstances it is inappropriate to make an award to the
worker. It would lead to serious repercussions throughout the
College, resulting in similar claims from other employees.
3. The worker has no formal librarian qualifications. At
no time during the course of her employment did the worker do
the work of an assistant librarian or sub-librarian.
DECISION:
4. The Court has considered all the evidence presented by the
parties. The Court has considered that on the basis that the
claimant performed work on Bibliographic Records which was
transferred at the beginning of 1994 to the Bibliographic Dept. it
is not unreasonable that she be recompensed for the work she
performed.
The Court could not find justification for recommending in favour
of her claim as presented and is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeals from both parties and so
decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94480 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9),
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 189/94 concerning a claim for regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in the dispute commenced her employment
with the College in May, 1968 as an executive assistant.
Currently she is paid a salary of #14,419 per annum. This is the
maximum point of the executive assistant scale. The worker is
employed in the library and has responsibility for the day-to-day
operation of acquiring, processing and withdrawing items in the
photocopying collection. In recent years she has sought promotion
based on her work and responsibilities in the library.
In 1993, an Assessment Board was established by the Committee on
salaries and promotions of administrative posts, secretarial and
library staff to review the grading of administrative posts. The
position of the worker concerned was one of the positions to be
regraded. In February, 1993 the worker withdrew her application
for regrading. In March, 1993 she re-submitted her application.
She was informed by management that it was not possible to accept
any additional applications as the Assessment Board was nearing
completion.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the matter on 3rd August, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation and findings are as follows:-
1. "It cannot be the function of a third party in a forum
such as this to decide the grading of a worker, as such
could not possibly be fairly decided at a hearing. The
grading evaluation system is a highly sophisticated
exercise carried out by experts in the field and
accordingly I cannot venture into this area and upon
mature reflection I think the claimant will agree.
2. However it is within my remit to examine her past
contribution to the efficient running of the Library
Service when she took over from a higher-graded person
and the various times when her work was covered by the
higher-graded staff during her absence. I am also
conscious of the rapid growth in the stock she had to
handle (2,800 records in 1980 and 8,400 records in
1994). Despite her contributions above it is not
possible to recommend a regrading on this basis".
Recommendation:
" I feel that this case can be best resolved by a once-off
payment to the claimant without precedent or prejudice and
her acceptance of this sum in full and final settlement of
all her outstanding claims since 1980 save her claim for
regrading which she should now allow go through the job
evaluation system under the capable hands of Mr Michael
Hannon of the Irish Productivity Centre.
I recommend that the claimant in the unique historical
circumstances of this case should receive the sum of #1,000
without prejudice or precedent".
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of
the industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 21st November, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The person who previously held the position of the
worker concerned was paid an assistant librarian's salary
(currently #13, 515 - #19,548 per annum).
2. It was established at the Rights Commissioner's hearing
that the worker who previously held the position and the
claimant were employed doing indentical work. It was also
established that during a period of absence in 1990 (Sept to
Dec) the worker was replaced by an assistant librarian.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation does not
adequately compensate the worker concerned for the difference
in remuneration paid to other staff who do similar work.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker re-submitted her application for
re-grading in March, 1993, it was too late for consideration
as the work of the Assessment Board was nearing completion.
She was informed that her application would be dealt with in
due course under whatever procedure was agreed for dealing
with outstanding applications.
2. The College is currently in the process of establishing
a new Grading Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Hannon,
I.P.C.. The worker's position is among those to be evaluated.
All staff covered by the evaluation exercise have been asked
to submit job descriptions for evaluation. In the
circumstances it is inappropriate to make an award to the
worker. It would lead to serious repercussions throughout the
College, resulting in similar claims from other employees.
3. The worker has no formal librarian qualifications. At
no time during the course of her employment did the worker do
the work of an assistant librarian or sub-librarian.
DECISION:
4. The Court has considered all the evidence presented by the
parties. The Court has considered that on the basis that the
claimant performed work on Bibliographic Records which was
transferred at the beginning of 1994 to the Bibliographic Dept. it
is not unreasonable that she be recompensed for the work she
performed.
The Court could not find justification for recommending in favour
of her claim as presented and is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeals from both parties and so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th December, 1994 ------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman