Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95706 Case Number: LCR15093 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ST. CATHERINES COLLEGE, SION HILL (Represented by IBEC) - and - IMPACT |
Regrading of 2 posts at the College (a) Catering Supervisor (b) Secretary to President of College.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances as outlined, the Court considers that the
appropriate course to follow for the resolution of this dispute is
to refer the jobs of the claimants for further evaluation, if
possible by the person/body which carried out the 1992 evaluation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95706 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ST. CATHERINES COLLEGE, SION HILL
and
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
Regrading of 2 posts at the College
(a) Catering Supervisor
(b) Secretary to President of College.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union is seeking the re-grading of 2 posts at the
College - (1) Catering Supervisor and (2) Secretary to
the President of the College.
2. Both posts were upgraded from January, 1993 following a
job evaluation exercise undertaken by the Institute of
Public Administration (IPA) in 1992. The pay level for
the post of Secretary was set at 85% of the Civil Service
Staff Officer scale and the rate for the Catering
Supervisor was set at 90% of the Clerical Officer grade
in Local Authorities.
3. A new Principal was appointed to the College on 1st
September, 1993. The Union is claiming that both workers
are now carrying out a substantially increased workload
since the job evaluations were undertaken by the IPA.
The rates of pay should be increased to reflect the
increased workload.
In April, 1995 the Higher Education Authority (HEA)
sanctioned the upgrading of the post of Secretary, at
Mary Immaculate College Limerick, from that of Staff
Officer to Executive Officer.
The Union had sought to refer the case of the Catering
Supervisor post to a Rights Commissioner but the employer
refused to attend.
4. The College argues that there was clear acceptance that
the settlement arrived at in 1993 on the basis of the job
evaluation exercise by the IPA was in full and final
settlement of the claim. It argues that no significant
change in the duties has taken place, but pointed out
that duties do in the normal course change.
5. As no agreement was possible between the parties, the
dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on the 15th June, 1995. The conciliation
conference was adjourned, at the Union's request, to
enable the College to seek Departmental approval to
re-evaluate the posts. The Department of Education has
refused to sanction the re-evaluation of the posts.
6. Agreement could not be reached at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th
November, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 22nd February, 1996 (earliest date suitable to
both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In April, 1995 the Higher Education Authority (HEA)
sanctioned the upgrading of the post of Secretary at Mary
Immaculate College Limerick from Staff Officer to
Executive Officer.
2. There has been a substantial addition to the range of
duties and responsibilities to both posts since the
evaluation by the IPA.
3. The salary scales for both posts should be reviewed again
to take account of the increased responsibilities.
4. The Union would have no objection to a further
examination of the posts by the IPA.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The job evaluation in 1992 by the IPA and subsequent
agreement by the Union was in full and final settlement
of the claim.
2. There has been no significant change in the duties
associated with the 2 posts.
3. The Department of Education will not sanction any further
evaluation of the posts.
4. The Union cannot, following acceptance of the IPA report,
"cherry pick" from the range of duties and seek to
improve gradings accordingly".
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances as outlined, the Court considers that the
appropriate course to follow for the resolution of this dispute is
to refer the jobs of the claimants for further evaluation, if
possible by the person/body which carried out the 1992 evaluation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
7th March, 1996 -------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.