Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94257 Case Number: LCR14763 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - |
Recommendation:
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
0
NoWorkers: 1
DatesOffered: 29/06/94;30/06/94;18/07/94;08/02/95
OnHoldDate:
DatePostponed:
RecAgreed: 11/05/95
RecPara: The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the parties
RecPara: in their oral and written submissions and has examined the
RecPara: correspondence and documentation submitted by the assessors.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: The Court is aware that the investigation by the assessors was
RecPara: into duties and responsibilities of the claimant when she was an
RecPara: employee of Thomond College. The Court considers that the methods
RecPara: employed by the assessors, and the manner in which the exercise
RecPara: was completed, were fair to the parties given the retrospective
RecPara: nature of the investigation and the need to depend on information
RecPara: supplied by management and employees in the College at that time,
RecPara: and on historical factors which are no longer in existence.
RecPara:
RecPara: Taking all of the circumstances the Court does not find grounds
RecPara: have been adduced which would alter in any significant way the
RecPara: conclusions reached by the assessors.
RecPara:
RecPara: Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
RecPara: claim.
EmployerReps:
Section: S26(1)
RecSigned: 19/05/95
Subject: Regrading.
RecToTyping: 09/02/95
DisputeType: PROMOTION
Venue:
WorkerClass: CLERICAL
DateWithdrawn:
WorkerParty: MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
Worker: Mr. Walsh
Body:
CD94257 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14763
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was originally employed as a senior
secretarial assistant by Thomond College of Education
(T.C.E.) in 1986. She was recruited following an open
competition. In 1990 she formally submitted a claim for
regrading. Management rejected the claim and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission in 1991. A
conciliation conference was held without agreement being
reached. It was decided to defer the claim as legislation
had been enacted in July 1991 abolishing T.C.E. and
integrating its functions with Limerick University. The
worker was transferred to Limerick University as a senior
secretarial assistant in the College of Engineering and
Science. Subsequently the workers claim for regrading was
the subject of local discussions and a further conciliation
conference took place but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court in December, 1991.
The court in LCR13543 recommended as follows:-
"In the light of the submissions made by the parties the
Court accepts the Union's contention that the provisions
of the Act should not be used to frustrate the claim
made by the worker which was being processed when the
Act came into operation. It is the view of the Court
that her grade should be determined by the grade
appropriate to the work she was doing prior to the
establishment of the University of Limerick and the
dissolution of Thomond College. The Court therefore
recommends that the parties seek the assistance of the
consultants who set up the original grading structure in
Thomond to assess the validity of her claim."
The consultants had left their respective employments and
consequently the Court requested representatives of the IPA
and Department of Finance to undertake an assessment of the
worker's duties and responsibilities. Their report was
issued in May, 1993 and concluded that the worker's post was
properly graded at Grade 3. In June, 1993 the Union rejected
the report and the dispute was again referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in
November, 1993 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court in May, 1994 and a Court hearing
was held on the 18th July, 1994. The hearing was adjourned
in order to facilitate the attendance of the representatives
of the IPA and Department of Finance who had compiled the
report. The Court investigated the dispute at a resumed
hearing which was held on the 8th February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned held a very significant level of
responsibility at T.C.E.. Her main areas were fees,
creditors and external fund budgets. She took full
responsibility for executive issues in the absence of
the Finance Controller. She was requested to undertake
this position by both the Director and the Registrar of
T.C.E. in 1987.
2. The consultants' report did not take into account the
level of the worker's responsibilities and grossly
underestimated those responsibilities.. She did not
receive a fair and equal hearing by the independent
assessors. They appeared to pre-judge the outcome prior
to interviewing the claimant and ignored a major and
fundamental position of her job dealing with the HEA,
Department of Education, budgetary control and
undertaking duties of the Finance Officer while he was
off work through illness (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The worker was disadvantaged by the merger. Had it not
taken place she would have been upgraded. Her immediate
superior (the Finance Officer) advised the worker that
she should at least be graded at Grade 4. He advised
the worker to submit a claim for regrading.
4. The worker, on transfer to Limerick University was
offered a position of lesser responsibility, thus
eroding her future prospects of promotion.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The assessment carried out by the IPA/Department
representatives indicated that the worker's post is
properly graded at Grade 3. The volume of their report
testifies to the level of attention and detail which the
consultants gave to the report and their methodology
ensured fairness to both parties (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The University totally rejects the Union's position on
the claim. Having accepted the Court's recommendation
for independent assessment and having participated fully
in the survey, the claimants rejection and
non-acceptance of the findings is tantamount to a
rejection of the voluntaristic nature of industrial
dispute resolution.
3. The Court, in a recent recommendation (LCR14449) upheld
the grading structure as proposed for T.C.E. by the IPA
survey in 1980 stating that "on the basis of the review
of the post carried out in 1980 and of the changes which
had taken place between then and the dissolution of
T.C.E. that the claimant was correctly graded and
appropriately remunerated at the time of dissolution".
Given the similar circumstances of this claim the
claimant's grade and remuneration (created as a result
of the same survey) were correct at the time of
dissolution of T.C.E.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and has examined the
correspondence and documentation submitted by the assessors.
The Court is aware that the investigation by the assessors was
into duties and responsibilities of the claimant when she was an
employee of Thomond College. The Court considers that the methods
employed by the assessors, and the manner in which the exercise
was completed, were fair to the parties given the retrospective
nature of the investigation and the need to depend on information
supplied by management and employees in the College at that time,
and on historical factors which are no longer in existence.
Taking all of the circumstances the Court does not find grounds
have been adduced which would alter in any significant way the
conclusions reached by the assessors.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.