Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95490 Case Number: LCR14917 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of one worker for promotion/upgrading.
Recommendation:
Taking into account all of the information presented and the
background to this particular case the Court finds merit in the
claimants case.
The Court recommends that the claimant be classified as Principal
Research Officer from 1st October, 1995 and paid accordingly.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95490 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14917
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TEAGASC
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of one worker for
promotion/upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed as a systems manager in
1985. His post was graded at Senior Research Officer level.
Two other systems managers were also appointed in 1985 at
different locations. In 1987 a "Voluntary Early Retirement
Scheme" was announced. The three systems managers applied.
Two were accepted. The application of the worker concerned
was refused on the grounds that his services were essential.
He subsequently applied for redeployment to an Bord Iascaigh
Mhara but his application was turned down by management. In
1992, following the reorganisation of computer services, a
new post - Head of Information Technology-was advertised and
the worker was successful in obtaining this post. He was
advised that the new assignment would be at the grade and
salary which he had. In 1994 Teagasc implemented 19
upgradings/promotions in the research area. The worker
concerned was not among the successful candidates. He
applied for an upgrading of his post to that of Principal
Research Officer on the grounds that there had been a
significant increase in the range of his duties and
responsibilities. Management rejected the claim. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on the 4th August, 1995 but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 23rd August, 1995. A Court hearing was
held on the 27th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were 7 candidates for the post of Head of
Information Technology at least three of whom were at
Principal Research Officer grade. The worker accepted
the post at his existing grade and salary but protested
and was assured that while the assignment would
initially be at existing grade and salary, his case
could be among the first to be reviewed. The worker
understood that he would be enhancing his case for
promotion by accepting the new post.
2. The post was created on the recommendation of the
Information Technology Specialist Panel. Because of the
nature of the post the panel recommended that it be
created at Principal Research Officer grade. Comparable
posts in Forbairt, IDA, FAS, CTT and other agencies
attract substantially higher salaries. The worker
concerned also applied for a Head of Department
allowance. This was refused.
3. The worker has been refused voluntary early retirement
on a number of occasions and refused redeployment, because
his services were essential. His responsibilities and
workload have increased significantly (details supplied
to the Court). He was given informal assurances that he
would be promoted which led him to remain in Teagasc.
The Union seeks his promotion to the grade of Principal
Research Officer with effect from 1992 i.e. the date he
accepted the post of Head of Information Technology.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following negotiations between the parties and
subsequent to the issue of Labour Court Recommendations
LCR13273/LCR13757, 19 employees were promoted. The
arrangements were accepted as being in full and final
settlement of all claims that research staff, as a
whole, might have under Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (PESP). It is not
appropriate therefore that the Union should submit
individual cases for promotion/upgrading.
2. The worker is subject to the same promotional procedures
used for all research staff. He was not treated less
favourably than others in the drawing up of the list of
19 to be promoted. There were 120 staff competing for
19 posts. Many other workers while deemed suitable
for promotion, could not be accommodated within the
limited number of posts available.
3. Management acknowledges the worker's contribution to the
development of Information Technology within the
organisation. However his case for promotion was
thoroughly and impartially examined.
4. While the worker's application for voluntary redundancy
were refused he was only one of a number of staff also
refused on similar grounds and who did not succeed in
obtaining promotion. Teagasc is not allowed to replace
staff who avail of voluntary early redundancy therefore
it could not allow posts which are deemed essential to
be vacated. There is not basis to infer that either the
posts or staff concerned warrant upgrading.
RECOMMENDATION:
Taking into account all of the information presented and the
background to this particular case the Court finds merit in the
claimants case.
The Court recommends that the claimant be classified as Principal
Research Officer from 1st October, 1995 and paid accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.