Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95728 Case Number: LCR15092 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - MSF |
Promotion of research staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has noted the very impressive qualifications of the claimant.
Nevertheless the Court is of the view that it cannot recommend the
by-passing of the normal promotion procedures which would be the
effect of concession of the claim.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim
and urges the parties to agree an appeal procedure for the filling
of any future vacancies.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95728 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARITES: TEAGASC
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Promotion of research staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union is claiming that one of its members should have
been promoted to Senior Principal Research Officer (SPRO)
from his present grade of Principal Research Officer
(PRO). In 1994, nineteen promotions for research staff
were made in Teagasc of which 8 were at the level of PRO
to SPRO. The Union stated that its member should have
been promoted based on his academic qualifications and
experience. He has published over 120
technical/scientific papers in national and international
journals.
2. The Union is claiming that its member was discriminated
against because of his age and his trade union activity
and also because he worked in "An Foras Taluntais" before
it merged with ACOT to become Teagasc.
3. Teagasc rejects the allegations of discrimination. It
argued that the normal promotion criteria were used and
that the employee did not receive a high enough placing
to be promoted. Teagasc stated that there is always an
element of subjectivity in the assessment process.
4. Both the Union and Teagasc are currently considering
proposals for a revised promotions mechanism which will
provide for an appeals procedure for the filling of
future vacancies.
5. Teagasc indicated that it would not concede this claim as
it would allow other officers, on an individual basis,
who were not promoted to make similar type claims. It
also objected to this dispute going to a Rights
Commissioner.
6. As no agreement was possible between the parties the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on the 22nd November,
1995.
7. Agreement was not possible at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th
December, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 26th February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was discriminated against because of his age
and trade union activity.
2. There is a strong bias in Teagasc in favour of promoting
younger research staff.
3. The SPRO grade was specifically designed to promote
research staff outside the normal posts of
responsibility.
4. The worker has published many technical and scientific
papers in national and international journals.
5. There is no established procedure for promotion in
Teagasc.
6. None of the research officers formerly recruited by An
Foras Taluntais were ever promoted to the SPRO grade.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Teagasc rejects the Union's claim that the worker was
discriminated against.
2. There were 19 promotions of research staff in 1994
following agreement with the Union. The Union is now in
breach of this agreement.
3. The promotions which were implemented were based on
scientific merit on the recommendations of research
managers.
4. There were 120 staff competing for 19 promotional places.
Many of these staff, while deemed suitable for
promotion, could not be accommodated because of the
number of posts available.
5. The worker was not considered less favourably than other
staff when the list of promotions were drawn up.
6. The agreement with the Union in 1994 was in full and
final settlement of all claims for research staff in
relation to Clause 2 (iii) of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
has noted the very impressive qualifications of the claimant.
Nevertheless the Court is of the view that it cannot recommend the
by-passing of the normal promotion procedures which would be the
effect of concession of the claim.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim
and urges the parties to agree an appeal procedure for the filling
of any future vacancies.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
12th March, 1996 ------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.