FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FORBAIRT - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT) MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (MSF) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. a) Upgrading of metrology staff ; b) Change in grading structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Legal Metrology Service implements the Metrology Act, 1996 in regards to units of measurement, methods of measurement and measuring instruments, by stipulating the requirements necessary to ensure public confidence and safety. Enforcement of the legislation is carried out by inspectors who deal with the accuracy on measuring and weighing instruments and also with checking that packaged products contain the declared quantities. The earlier legislation, which dated from the 1930's and before, was updated in the Metrology Act, 1996 and came into force in May, 1997. Under the Act, the Legal Metrology Service was established within Forbairt under a new Director of Legal Metrology.
Prior to the implementation of the Act in May, 1997, the functions under previous legislation were carried out by weights and measures inspectors, local authority employees of both Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Borough Corporations or members of the Garda Siochana throughout the rest of the country, or by Quality Control Inspectors from the Department of Enterprise and Employment. These inspectors were given three options when the new Metrology Act came into operation:
(1) Transfer to Forbairt under their existing pay arrangements;
(2) Appointment to a new grade of Metrology Inspector within Forbairt;
(3) Redeployment elsewhere within their original employer group.
The members of the Garda Siochana either accepted transfer under the existing pay arrangements or remained with the Garda Siochana. The local authority staff opted to remain with their respective employers while the Department of Enterprise and Employment staff (5 inspectors) opted to transfer onto the new grade of Metrology Inspector within Forbairt.
Impact is in dispute with Forbairt regarding the grading of the technical staff transferred from the Department of Enterprise and Employment under the Legal Metrology Act, 1996 while MSF, which represents the technical staff in Forbairt, is in dispute regarding its view that Forbairt has implemented changes in procedures and in the grading structure affecting its members without agreement or consultation.
Forbairt has two grades of Technical staff, Technical Grade 1 (T1) and Technical Grade 2 (T2). MSF claims that all technical grade staff have an entitlement to automatic progression to grade 2 in due course. IMPACT claims that the transferred staff should be slotted into Grade 2 as they have already met the criteria for progression from Grade 1 (i.e. experience and qualifications).
Forbairt states that it wants to change the automatic progression route between the two grades and to more clearly define and distinguish the roles of both grades. In November, 1997, Forbairt informed the staff concerned that future promotions from Grade 1 to Grade 2 for new staff would be by way of open competition. IMPACT rejected this proposal.
MSF is also in dispute on this issue. It claims that such changes can only be implemented on foot of negotiations and agreement.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th December, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th January, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th February, 1998.
IMPACT:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The staff transferred to Forbairt from the Department of Enterprise and Employment should be slotted into T.2 as they have already met the criteria for progression from T. 1.
2. Both parties agreed that the staff concerned would transfer to Forbairt at T.1 on the basis that the issue in dispute would be addressed.
3. The technicians work on their own with no direct supervision. This complies with Forbairt's objectives for the technician T.2 posts.
4. The union claims that its case for T.2 posts is well founded and wants the implementation date effective from the date of transfer of the 5 technicians to Forbairt.
MSF:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Technicians in Forbairt always had automatic progression from T.1 to T.2 with the necessary qualifications and relevant experience.
2. Prior to the establishment of Forbairt in 1992 a commitment was given to the Union to establish 47 permanent technician posts at T.1 and T.2.
3. The Unions see no circumstances under which a new grading structure for technician posts is necessary and objects to Forbairt putting a bar on technician T.1 posts.
4. Management should adhere to the existing agreements on the technician grading structure. Changes can only be implemented following discussions and agreement with the Unions.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Management's position with regards to the Metrology staff is that their appropriate grade is Grade T.1 and that progression to T.2 will only be possible by open competition.
2. The duties involved are not highly technical and the salary levels of the staff concerned are appropriate to T.1.
3. Forbairt is seeking to change the automatic progression route between the two grades and to more clearly define and distinguish the role of both grades.
4. The staff who transferred onto the new grade of Metrology Inspector in Forbairt received a 20% increase in salary.
5. Forbairt is faced with 2 claims by 2 unions seeking to negotiate on the same grading issue. Management requested the 2 unions to decide as to which Union should have the negotiating rights for the new grade.
6. Management indicated to the Unions that it plans to make appointments at supervisory level and have more long-term plans to create other more highly graded positions to cater for advances in the service.
7. The staff who transferred to Forbairt are protected by the terms of the 1996 Act, E.U. legislation and case-law governing the transfer of undertakings.
8. The Metrology Inspector grade in Forbairt is a new grade and is not covered by any precedents which previously existed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has examined all the issues raised by the parties to this dispute. The Court is conscious of the difficulties which are always encountered on the transfer of employees from one organisation to another. This invariably gives rise to conflicts. In the circumstances as outlined the Court finds as follows:-
1.Grading of five Quality Control Inspectors
The Court finds their grading as T.1.s correct. However, they should be allowed to progress to T.2. subject to having the relevant qualifications and satisfactory service in the grade in Forbairt and in accordance with the existing structure.
2.Grading Structure
It is clear that a revised grading structure is desirable in the context of the changed circumstances. It is to everyone's benefit that this revision be carried out immediately. Whilst it may be cumbersome the Court finds that Management have no option but to have the two Unions with members involved in these negotiations. The question of automatic progression from T.1 to T.2 should be addressed as part of these negotiations, the five Quality Control Inspectors referred to above being treated as "red circled" if necessary.
The Court recommends acceptance of these above proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
13th March, 1998______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.