Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95410 Case Number: LCR14846 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Promotion/advancement for research officers.
Recommendation:
The Court is concerned that the claimants in this case embarked on
a form of industrial action prior to the Court hearing the claim.
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that all
former AFT staff who are at the top of the RO pay scale be
advanced immediately to SRO with full retrospection equal to the
amount of years that they have been held in that position.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim as it applies
to entrants subsequent to the passing of the Act of Teagasc.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95410 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14846
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TEAGASC
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Promotion/advancement for research officers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Teagasc was established in 1988 following the merger of An
Chomhairle Oiliuna Talmhaiochta (ACOT) and An Foras Taluntais
(AFT). The workers concerned in the dispute are employed by
Teagasc as research officers (RO). There are 10 permanent
staff in the RO grade, 8 of whom are on the maximum of the
scale, 4 of whom had been appointed by AFT.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for
the advancement of all former AFT RO's and all Teagasc RO's
who have reached the maximum of the scale to senior research
officers (SRO). The Union argue that there is an established
custom and practice of automatic advancement for RO to SRO,
and that management had now changed this system by its
failure to advance RO's, even those at the maximum of the
scale.
Management's position is that there was never any automatic
progression as such and that there is a procedure to be
followed. This procedure had changed insofar as ministerial
approval was now required for all promotions.
Local level discussions took place but no agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 19th
June, 1995. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 13th July, 1995 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 27th July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's view that the terms and conditions of
employment of the research staff are being eroded,
contrary to the provision of the agreement and
legislation setting up Teagasc.
2. Management has acknowledged that the staff in employment
when Teagasc was established had certain guarantees
regarding terms and conditions of employment and that in
the past RO's had progressed to SRO's
3. Management are in breach of the Agriculture (Research,
Training and Advice) Act, 1988 (Teagasc Act) in failing
to advance research staff from RO to SRO as was custom
and practice in AFT. Management's contention that
Board's approval is required is not in accordance with
Section (1) of the conditions of service applying to the
posts of RO and SRO in both AFT and Teagasc.
4. Teagasc has not officially retracted the career
structure or the system of career advancement as existed
in AFT, i.e., that all research officers, including
those who have attained the maximum of the RO scale
within Teagasc, must have their career advancement
treated as was the practice in AFT.
5. Scientific officers employed by Forbait, and Eolas, a
sister organisation of Teagasc, with similar pay scales
to the workers concerned have automatic progression to
senior scientific officers.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Section 8 (3) of the Agriculture (Research, Training and
Advice) Act, 1988 states "the grades of the staff of
Teagasc and a subsidiary and the numbers of staff in
each grade shall be determined by Teagasc or, as the
case may be, the subsidiary with the consent of the
Minister and the Minister of Finance."
It is a matter for Teagasc management to identify staff
in any category whom, it is felt, would merit promotion
and then to seek the approval of the relevant Government
Departments.
2. The Union has argued that there is a long established
custom and practice of automatic advancement from RO to
SRO and any diminution of that process would be a
worsening of conditions of employment which are
safeguarded under the Teagasc Act. While Teagasc
acknowledge that the majority of staff in AFT were
advanced from RO to SRO, it is not accepted that this
represents an established custom and practice of
automatic progression as such promotions were based on
scientific merit. The Director of AFT was not required
by the terms of the The Agriculture (An Foras Taluntais)
Act, 1958 (AFT Act) to seek the approval of the relevant
Government Departments.
3. Teagasc does not accept that the approach adopted for RO
to SRO promotions constituted part of the terms and
conditions of RO staff. Even if Teagasc's position in
this respect was not accepted by the Court, only the
four serving RO's appointed by AFT could be regarded as
having suffered a worsening of conditions, since the
remaining four RO grade staff on the maximum of scale
entered the grade under the terms of the 1988
legislation, whereby Departmental approval is required.
4. In 1994, Teagasc promoted eight SRO's to principal
research officer (PRO), three SRO's to senior principal
research officer (SPRO), and eight PRO's to SPRO.
Management indicated at that time, that a number of RO
to SRO promotions could be accommodated within the
overall promotions package. As this would have involved
a lesser number of promotions to the higher levels the
Union did not wish to proceed on this basis.
5. As illustrated by the recent promotion of a significant
number of research staff, Teagasc is committed to
ensuring a satisfactory career structure for its
research staff, within the constraints imposed by
national agreements and its obligations under the
Teagasc Act to obtain Departmental approval for the
promotion of staff.
6. Teagasc should not be subjected to the present
industrial action which has potentially very serious
implications for the organisation and which is in breach
of the industrial peace provisions of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW) Pay Agreement as it
applies to the public service.
7. In the circumstances management requests that the Court
recommends that Teagasc management must, as required
under the terms of the Agriculture (Research, Training
and Advice) Act, 1988, continue to seek approval for
promotions for research staff within the constraints set
out above and having regard to organisation
requirements, performance criteria and the realities of
the organisation's budgetary situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that the claimants in this case embarked on
a form of industrial action prior to the Court hearing the claim.
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that all
former AFT staff who are at the top of the RO pay scale be
advanced immediately to SRO with full retrospection equal to the
amount of years that they have been held in that position.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim as it applies
to entrants subsequent to the passing of the Act of Teagasc.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.