Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD967 Case Number: LCR15123 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AN BORD TRACHTALA (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for upgrading by 20 or so staff and on how future claims should be dealt with.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, recommends that,
given the circumstances of this case, the jobs of the staff
(approximately 22) whose grading claims are outstanding for some
considerable time be evaluated using the system agreed between the
Board and the Union.
In so far as the future is concerned, the parties, given
current policy, should discuss how future grade claims may be
addressed.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD967 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15123
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AN BORD TRACHTALA
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for upgrading by 20 or so staff and on how future
claims should be dealt with.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Board is a state-sponsored body which was formed as a
result of a merger in 1991 between Coras Trachtala and the
Irish Goods Council. It currently employs 250 people, both
in Ireland and abroad.
The dispute concerns the implementation of a job evaluation
scheme. A working group consisting of members of Management
and the Union was established in July, 1991 and an
independent advisor was employed in December, 1991.
Management accepted the working group's recommendations in
1992, but insisted that 22 outstanding claims for upgrading
were to remain on hold until a scheme could be put in
operation. In 1993 it was decided to adapt the 'Wyatt
Scheme' and an independent chairman was employed to deal with
the benchmarking of posts. An agreed procedural document was
drawn up in February, 1995, but in September, 1995 Management
informed the Union that the Department of Finance would not
sanction the agreed scheme. The 22 outstanding claims were
to remain on hold.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 8th
January, 1996. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 15th January, 1996 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Labour Court investigated the dispute on 6th
March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff voluntarily took part in the working groups, which
included extensive training in the whole evaluation
process. Throughout the past five and a half years
Management gave no indication that it would not be in a
position to implement the final agreed scheme.
2. Following the merger in 1991, the nature of work and the
role of the organisation has changed dramatically, with
no corresponding increase in staff numbers. It is
imperative that an independent review should be carried
out, without further delay, on the jobs of the 20 or so
workers whose upgrading claims have been on hold since
1991.
3. Given the time, money and effort already expended, and
the training programmes completed, an in-house committee
should be considered to deal with any future claims.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management cannot accede to the Union's request for an
ongoing system, as such systems lead to a continual
upward uncontrolled pressure on the public sector pay
bill. Job evaluation seriously erodes Management's
ability to manage staffing costs.
2. If a job evaluation system is implemented during the
lifetime of the P.C.W., it would concentrate the Option
2 benefits on a small minority of staff, to the
detriment of the majority.
3. The usage of job evaluation systems in the public
service has now virtually ceased. A once-off stand
alone system may be considered on a case by case basis.
The introduction of a new system could also seriously
hinder Management in any future reorganisation it may
wish to implement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, recommends that,
given the circumstances of this case, the jobs of the staff
(approximately 22) whose grading claims are outstanding for some
considerable time be evaluated using the system agreed between the
Board and the Union.
In so far as the future is concerned, the parties, given
current policy, should discuss how future grade claims may be
addressed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st April, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.