Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93708 Case Number: AD9415 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: EOLAS / FORBAIRT - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. ST 342/93.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the claimant has the academic qualifications
necessary for a Senior Scientific Officer position and understands
that he may apply for such positions as they arise.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, however, the
Court does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. Accordingly, that Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93708 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
EOLAS / FORBAIRT
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No.
ST 342/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim lodged on the 15th of August,
1991, on behalf of one worker, for upgrading from the Grade of
Technician Grade II to Senior Scientific Officer (S.S.O.). the
claim for upgrading was not conceded due to the Government embargo
on promotions which commenced in March, 1987. The dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
Recommendation. On the 16th of November, 1993, the Rights
Commissioner found that an anomalous situation existed and that
the employer had been "placed in an impossible position in having
to defend the indefensible". He recommended as follows :
"that the claimant is placed on the grade of Experimental
Officer which is the logical progression for him towards
Senior Scientific Officer".
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the
23rd of December, 1993 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the grounds that the worker's
job responsibilities warrant a higher grade than that recommended.
The Court heard the appeal on the 4th of February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The compromise recommendation that the worker be
promoted to Experimental Officer as part of a "logical
progression to the S.S.O. Grade" is based on a
misunderstanding of the situation in Forbairt. The
Experimental Officer grade is seen as the most senior grade
for career technicians in the organisation and management
does not accept that there is a "logical progression" from
this grade to the S.S.O. level. The usual tasks of the
Experimental Officer (E.O.) include supervisory or specialist
technician work. It is important to note that this grade is
not a transitional grade to the professional ranks, as
perceived in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. The
worker no longer operates at the technician level within his
Department and therefore promotion to Experimental Officer
would not be appropriate.
2. The worker's level of academic qualifications,
experience and workload (details supplied to the Court) are
consistent with the S.S.O. level within the Atmospheric
Environment Department, which is accepted as being one of the
busiest and best departments in Forbairt.
3. The average fees earned within the Department at S.S.O.
Level was approximately #45,000. The total fees for jobs
under the worker's control amounted to #63,000 of which
approximately #45,000 comprised Department fees. The worker
operates with the same autonomy as colleagues at S.S.O.
level, reporting directly to his Head of Department. It is
not unusual for colleagues at S.S.O. and E.O. level to
operate under his supervision if the job so requires.
4. The anomaly of the worker's position in the context of
his present qualifications, responsibilities and performance
has been well recognised by his Head of Department, who has
repeatedly recommended him for promotion, over the last seven
years (details supplied).
FORBAIRT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Agency would accept the findings of the Rights
Commissioner if it was possible for them to do so without
referral for sanction for this to the Department of Finance.
Since the Commissioner's hearing, this case has been referred
to the Department but to date no sanction has been
forthcoming. The worker has a case for promotion to the
highest classification of Technician grade, i.e. Experimental
Officer. The Agency, however, would have difficulty with any
finding which would appear to establish a new promotional
path as of right within the Forbairt structure. The
professional and technician grades are two distinct career
structures and while Forbairt and its predecessor have
allowed people to cross from the technician to professional
structure this has always been at the discretion of
Management. Forbairt's sister organisation Teagasc, with
which there is a parity of conditions relationship, would
never allow such a cross-over to take place.
2. The Agency has been under an embargo concerning
promotions since 1987. However, in certain situations staff
were upgraded over a period of years (72 staff in all).
Unfortunately, at the time the claim was made, the worker's
case had not been reached and subsequently problems were
encountered with the Department which prevented the continued
upgrading of staff.
3. In 1990, the worker received his M.Sc. degree from
Trinity College, Dublin, which certainly would qualify him
for promotion to Senior Scientific Officer grade. His
training to this level was paid for by the Agency but at no
time was any commitment relating to promotion to any level
entered into with him. For technician grades, the only
guaranteed promotion is to the career level grade of
Technician 2 subject to possessing the relevant
qualifications and experience.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the claimant has the academic qualifications
necessary for a Senior Scientific Officer position and understands
that he may apply for such positions as they arise.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, however, the
Court does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. Accordingly, that Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd March, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./A.L. _______________
Chairman