FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Retrospection on foot of job evaluation exercise.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for retrospection by the Union on behalf of 16 clerical/administrative workers arising from a job evaluation scheme. There is a total of 27 workers involved, 11 of whom are non-union.
The initial job evaluation began in 1989 and was conducted by the Institute of Public Administration (IPA). Job descriptions were submitted for evaluation during 1990. The IPA made its report in 1992. This report was initially accepted by the Union but a later amended report was rejected. In 1994, the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) was invited to review the position and it issued a report in May, 1996. A number of upgradings and 'red circles' were made. In October, 1996, the Union informed the College that the administrative staff who were upgraded in May, 1996, were seeking retrospection payments from the date of submitting job descriptions (1990). In December, 1996, the finance committee of the College rejected the claim on the grounds that it had implemented the terms of the current job evaluation scheme and that any previous scheme had no relevance to the issue of retrospection.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and two conciliation conferences took place on the 16th of July, 1997 and the 27th of January, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of February, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of April, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The staff who were upgraded in May, 1996 achieved this on the basis of job descriptions originally submitted in 1990. The IPC report confirms this. Most of the staff involved were performing the duties of the higher grade since 1990 and are entitled to payment from that date. Those not working in 1990 will look for retrospective payment from the appropriate date.
2. The principle of paying the higher rate from the date of commencement of the scheme was established in the College through the Library settlement of 1994/1995. A job evaluation was agreed in 1994 and reported in 1995. Payment of the adjustments in pay was retrospective to 1994. The workers involved undertook all duties assigned to them and are entitled to payment for the work done. Provision was made for payment of the increases in the budget for 1994/1995.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College has fully implemented the terms of the job evaluation scheme and no retrospection arises. The terms of reference were finalised in January, 1995 and the upgradings took place in May, 1996. This is not a long period of time for such a complex evaluation of the administrative grade (full details of the job evaluation were supplied by the College). In October, 1995, the College had to write to staff urging them to complete and forward their job descriptions for grading.
2. The College has followed normal practice in the public sector by allowing the upgradings only from the date of approval of the grading committee - May, 1996. A previous job evaluation scheme, devised with the assistance of the IPA was abandoned. The Union cannot now rely on that scheme as the basis for its claim. No objective evaluation of what might have happened under a different scheme can be made. The claim is cost increasing under the terms of Partnership 2000. Any concession could lead to further claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, and taking into account the history of this case, the Court recommends that the date of implementation of the job evaluation findings be January, 1995, the date on which the College and SIPTU agreed the terms of reference for the Scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th May, 1998______________________
C.O'.N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.