FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union for the up-grading of two posts from Senior Inspector to Senior Principal Administrative Officer with a Head of Department allowance.
Following the "Chadwick" review in 1991 of the grade structures within Teagasc, it was agreed between the parties to omit the two posts now in dispute from the review, and to have the posts regraded at a later date.
The Union claims that the failure of Teagasc to up-grade these two posts is a serious breach of faith. Teagasc argues that the structure has changed and that there is now fewer people reporting to Senior Inspector than in the past and that there is no merit in the claim.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 22nd February, 1996 but no agreement was reached. The Industrial Relations Officer proposed that an independent third party assessment of the grading of the posts be carried out. Teagasc would not countenance a third party review.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The posts concerned were excluded from the "Chadwick" review at the request of management. The posts should now be re-graded as promised.
2. In May, 1995 the Director of Teagasc acknowledged that the posts should be re-graded.
3. Similar posts in Teagasc are at Principal Officer level (Finance) and attract a head of department allowance.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Teagasc does not accept that valid grounds exist for the up-grading of the posts concerned and the payment of an allowance.
2. The continuous requests for regradings is undermining the ability of Teagasc to operate efficiently.
3. The claim is a cost increasing one and is precluded under the terms of the PCW agreement.
4. There is no merit in the claim as the structure of responsibility has changed and there is now fewer people reporting to the Senior Inspectors. Therefore, the claimants' line management responsibility is limited.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds the staff here concerned have been dealt with unfairly.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court recommends the employees concerned be regraded and paid the equivalent of Principal Officer (Finance) with effect from 1st June, 1993.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
20th June, 1996______________________
L.W,/D.TDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.