Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94112 Case Number: LCR14379 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the terms for upgrading of administrative assistants from grade III to grade IV.
Recommendation:
The Court finds the employees concerned in this dispute have been
wrongly graded for a number of years. The Court also finds that
the claim falls to be dealt with in accordance with the procedures
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. It is the view of the Court that
the framework proposed for the resolution of the claim is in
accordance with the provisions of the Clause but does not
adequately address the circumstances of the staff concerned in
this dispute.
The Court recommends that the parties, within a period of 4 weeks,
agree a reasonable basis of assimilation to adequately address the
situations which has wrongly applied to these staff.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree an acceptable
basis for addressing the claim of the staff, the Court shall
review the discussions of the parties and issue a definitive
Recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94112 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14379
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the terms for upgrading of administrative
assistants from grade III to grade IV.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Central and Regional Fisheries Boards were
established in 1980 to manage, conserve, develop and promote
inland fisheries. The Central Fisheries Board also
co-ordinates the personnel function of the Regional Boards.
The claim is in respect of 11 administrative workers who are
employed in the 7 Regional Fisheries Boards.
2. In November 1989, the Union lodged a claim to have
Administrative Assistants regarded from grade III to grade
IV. The basis of the claim was because the grade reforms new
duties arising out of the non-imeplementation of the
administrative staff structure as negotiated under the staff
scheme. There were other issues put forward in support of
the claim.
3. The claim was considered by the Labour Court and
LCR13843 was signed on 12th November 1992. The Court
recommended inter-alia that the only satisfactory means of
dealing with a difference of opinion on the grading position
was to have the work assessed. An independent assessment was
carried out and the parties now agree that the workers should
be upgraded from grade III to grade IV.
4. The Board has offered to upgrade the workers with
effect from 1st November, 1993 on the basis of assimilation
onto the higher scale by crediting the workers with one
increment and the next point upwards on the scale. In
addition the Board has offered #250 to each worker in lieu of
retrospection. The Board's offer is contingent on the
Union's agreement to co-operate with information technology.
5. The Board's offer was rejected by the Union and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 7th February, 1994 but no
progress was possible. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 15th February 1994. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 24th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has been proven that the claimants have been doing
duties appropriate to grade IV for over seven years while
only being paid grade III rates. It is the Union's position
that the claimants should be regraded to the correct point on
the grade IV scale based on their service and that it should
not be treated like a promotion.
2. The Board's offer of regrading from November 1993 and
#250 in lieu of retrospection is not acceptable. Nor is it
acceptable to tie in the issue of information technology
to this claim. The claimants are being treated harshly
(details supplied). The workers were incorrectly graded and
should be regraded and paid full retrospection. There will be
no repercussive claims.
BOARD"S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board's offer has been sanctioned by the Department
of Finance and is in accordance with recent precedents set in
other cases. The claimants' claim is subject to the terms of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. Any increase can only apply from
1st January, 1993 and the effective implementation date of
1st November, 1993 together with the lump sum is in
accordance with that.
2. The Board does not accept, in the light of the
independent assessment of the claim (details supplied), that
co-operation in the use of information technology should be
withheld. The particular technology envisaged is not of a
particularly advanced or exceptional nature and is concerned
with payroll and accounting systems.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds the employees concerned in this dispute have been
wrongly graded for a number of years. The Court also finds that
the claim falls to be dealt with in accordance with the procedures
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. It is the view of the Court that
the framework proposed for the resolution of the claim is in
accordance with the provisions of the Clause but does not
adequately address the circumstances of the staff concerned in
this dispute.
The Court recommends that the parties, within a period of 4 weeks,
agree a reasonable basis of assimilation to adequately address the
situations which has wrongly applied to these staff.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree an acceptable
basis for addressing the claim of the staff, the Court shall
review the discussions of the parties and issue a definitive
Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd March, 1994. Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.