FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing Arising From Labour Court Recommendation LCR15513 concerning re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerning re-grading was the subject of a Labour Court investigation in April, 1997.
On the 30th April, 1997 the Court in LCR15513 issued its recommendation as follows:
"The Court notes the existence of an Independent Grading Committee with an inbuilt appeals mechanism. The Court considers it would be wrong to interfere with the decision of this Committee unless there was some irregularity which had prevented the Committee from making a fair decision. There is no evidence of any irregularity.
The Court also notes that a new grade, Grade AOIA, has been introduced above AO.I. level and that assessments have yet to be made by the Grading Committee for existing jobs in this new grade. The Court recommends that the Grading Committee should, as a matter of urgency, assess the claimant's job for that grade.
In addition it is open to the claimant after 21st October next to appeal the original assessment in the event of changes in the claimant's work."
Subsequently, the parties entered extensive local level negotiations but agreement could not be reached in relation to the re-grading. On the 14th July, 1998, the Union sought the Labour Court's intervention as it claimed the worker's claim had not been dealt with by the Job Grading Committee. A Court hearing was held on the 9th November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. LCR15513 had two essential elements in it;
(i) that in the light of the introduction of a new grade/scale of Administrative Officer 1A, "the Grading Committee should, as a matter of urgency, assess the claimant's job for that grade and;
(ii) stated that "in addition it is open to the claimant after 21st October, 1997 next to appeal the original assessment in the event of the changes in the claimant's work" (the latter alluded to the Senior Administrative IV grade which had originally been sought by the claimant).
2. The claimant, pursuant to the second part of the LCR15513, sought reconsideration of her post for grading at Senior Administrative IV level. In November, 1997 she sent in some supplementary information in this connection. Subsequently Management indicated that the Grading Committee was not in a position to proceed with assessments as certain details for these had not been worked out. Despite numerous correspondence between the parties there was no movement at any level pursuant to LCR15513.
3. The claimant has been totally frustrated in her attempts to secure an assessment of her post with regard to either the Administrative 1A or Senior Administrative IV grade, in the first instance, on the basis of her original job evaluation or in the second, in relation to the job evaluation submitted after LCR15513 which showed extensive development of her responsibilities. There is no indication whatsoever from the College that this will occur.
4. LCR15513 has been wholly frustrated in both essential respects i.e. parts (i) and (ii).
5. The only situation to overcome the impasse is for the Court to issue a recommendation on the appropriate grading for the claimant in the grade of a Senior Administrative IV level.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In accordance with LCR15513 the worker's job was referred back to the grading committee in October, 1997 to be considered in the context of the newly established grade of Administrative Officer 1A. At her request her job description was revised and an amended version was signed off by the claimant, a job analyst and the Head of Department in September, 1997.
2. In a letter to the Personnel Department in September, 1997, the worker referred to the fact that her post had expanded and developed extensively since the original job evaluation process in 1996. The worker also referred to the Labour Court notation that she could apply for up-grading to Senior Administrative Officer IV in Autumn 1997, in the event of changes in her job content. However, this is not the way in which the job grading process works. Postholders do not apply to have their job up-graded to a particular grade. They are entitled only to submit their job descriptions to the Job Grading Committee for evaluation (details of the re-evaluation procedure supplied to the Court).
3. The Job Grading Committee was not in a position to assess the claimant's or indeed any other post in relation to the newly established grade of Administrative Officer 1A as score points or grade bands had yet to be agreed with the Union. Discussions are still ongoing. To implement the LCR15513 to assess the worker's majority post in relation to the grade of Administrative Officer 1A without Union approval of the relevant points might jeopardise the co-operative participative nature of the scheme. The Job Grading Committee did not consider the worker for re-evaluation as she did not appear to have made a case that substantive changes to her duties and responsibilities had occurred.
4. The grade recommended by the Job Grading Committee in May, 1996, for the worker's post was Administrative Officer 1, her current grade. The Appeals Committee subsequently upheld the decision. The Court said quite clearly there was no evidence of any irregularity in the process.
5. In response to the worker's persistent requests for re-grading to Senior Administrative Officer IV, Management agreed to bring her case before the Job Grading Committee. It would in turn have to assess whether substantive changes had occurred in the duties of the post. There is no guarantee that, even if the post was re-evaluated it would result in an up-grading.
6. The worker has not been denied natural justice and her post has been considered fully in accordance with the current grading structure and the procedure for assessing individual posts within it.
7. It would not be possible or desirable to set-up special mechanisms for individual cases, as many postholders may feel unhappy with the outcome of the job grading process.
8. When grade bands for the grade of Administrative Officer 1A are agreed with the major Union, the former Job Grading Committee will be reconvened to assess specific posts in relation to this grade. The claimant's post would be included in the group.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both parties and notes that as the agreement on the points range or grade band for the newly established grade of Administrative Officer 1A (AO1A) is still outstanding, it is not possible for LCR15513 to be fully implemented.
It is not appropriate for the Court to recommend which grade an employee should be placed on. This is clearly the function of the College through its appropriately agreed mechanisms.
The Court recommends that, if by the 1st of March, 1999 the points range for AO1A has not been agreed, the position of the claimant should be considered by a management review as applies to new positions within the College. This is being recommended due to the prolonged nature of this particular claim.
Recommendation No. LCR15513 stated that the claimant was free to appeal her grading after the 21st of October, 1997 (as per procedures), on the basis of changes in her work. The claimant tried to do this, but as her application did not conform with the procedures, it was not referred to the appropriate Committee. In order to appeal an assessment of the Grading Committee the claimant must show thatthe Committee had not taken full cognisance of the information at its disposal. This is difficult to do as the claimant did not receive any feedback from the Grading Committee regarding the original assessment.
The Court recommends that the claimant should be given guidelines on making an appeal. This should be proceeded with as a matter of urgency, the Committee being convened for the purpose, if necessary.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th November, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.