FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : ENTERPRISE IRELAND LIMITED - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rehearing arising from LCR 16440.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 2000 a dispute concerning the harmonisation of grades and conditions of employment in the Agency was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and Recommendation. In LCR 16440 which was issued on the 4th of April, 2000, the Court recommended as follows:
- "The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties. The history of this case is that, following the establishment of Enterprise Ireland, an exercise was undertaken involving two representative bodies in order to deal with the issue of harmonisation of grades.
Subsequently, one Union withdrew from the discussions and, following industrial action, was provided with a process by the Company, which included two facilitators, to address their claim. This process resulted in a deal being concluded in March, 1999.
The group of employees currently before the Court were, after lengthy discussions, provided with a similar process, but this was not brought to a conclusion. The facilitators in this case withdrew on the basis that they felt that they had brought the solution settlement as far as possible, but could go no further given the influence in the background of the Department of Finance and the parameters being set within the Enterprise Ireland operation.
It is the Court's view that this group currently before the Court has not had the full benefit of a similar exercise as provided for the other Union group. Given that some of the issues preventing a solution being reached have since been addressed, the Court recommends that:
1. The issue of harmonisation of grading structures be referred back to the Labour Relations Commission.
2. Discussions to take place under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission between Enterprise Ireland and MSF with a view to reaching an agreement.
3. The parties should agree a package of proposals to be put to the claimants, and any outstanding issues not agreed can then be referred to the Court.
4. If the parties fail to reach agreement on a package at conciliation, then the matter can be referred to the Court for a definitive recommendation."
Subsequently, the parties returned to conciliation under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and conferences were held on the 1st and 8th of June, 2000. The Agency submitted a set of proposals for the grades represented by MSF (details supplied to the Court). Agreement was reached in respect of Technician Grades and the Principal Scientific Officer grade. The outstanding claims relate to Senior Principal Scientific Officer(SPSO) and Senior Scientific Officer(SSO) grades.The Union's claim is for the former IDA Grade one in respect of SPSO's and the ex ABT grade 7 for the SSO's The Union sought a further hearing as provided for in Paragraph 4 of LCR 16440. A Court hearing was held on the 7 th July 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Senior Principal Scientific Officers(SPSO £47,795 - £55,035). - there are 8 employees at this grade.
MSF contends that recent EI management structure charts show no significant responsibility differences between staff in this grade and those in former IDA Grade 1 (salary max. £63,184), They carry responsibility for the operation of a number of departments, report to a member of the executive and have several departmental managers reporting to them. Beyond a statement in negotiations that they see SPSO and Grade 1 as different, management have put forward no evidence to support this view or made any specific proposals for this grade and staff currently in it.
While management have acknowledged a role of this grade, there is a general requirement for further clarification in relation to the precise future of the grade and the criteria and mechanisms to be used for promotion/appointment to it. It is MSF's contention that their responsibilities are akin to that of staff at Grade 1 level.
2. Scientific Officer/Senior Scientific Officer (SO/SSO) - this level also includes Research Officer/Senior Research Officer in the Programmes for Advanced Technology (RO/SRO in PATs). Salary scale IR£21,214 - IR£30,303 and IR£28,917 - IR£40,041 with two Long Service Increments (LSI) to IR£42,762.
Number at grades: 15 SO/RO and 140 SSO/SRO = 155
This is the main professional career grade and a settlement for it has been the main issue between management and the MSF professional group. The only offer made by management is that a small number of persons at the top of the SSO grade (up to 10) might have access to promotion to the PSO grade on "technical merit" over the next few years. This is merely the reinstatement in a more limited form of a facility that existed in EOLAS but had not been operated in Forbairt. Such reinstatement must form part of any solution but cannot be a solution of itself. A clear case remains for a simple improvement in the SSO maximum. This could easily be achieved by harmonisation with the former ABT 7 grade - max. IR£41,487 with LSIs to IR£44,309. This has been red circled in the SIPTU agreement with no further appointments to it. Thus any costs involved would be small.
It is apparent that the former ABT 7 grade carried a salary scale which recognised and rewarded the intrinsic value of, and core competencies associated with the job functions at that level, as well as the expertise and experience of the post-holders. The Union contends that an equivalent case applies to the grade of SO/SSO, where the post-holders have invariably been employed on the basis of a unique set of technological and industrial skills, competencies and experience.
The Union believes that management were at one point quite happy to accept harmonisation to the ABT 7 salary maximum and proposed such a solution to the Department of Finance. However, the response was negative. There is little prospect of acceptance of any set of proposals by workers without specific action on this grade.
AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Senior Principal Scientific Officer (SPSO)
The Grade 1 Divisional Manager post (which has relativity to the Assistant Secretary Grade in the Civil Service) in the Agencies, carries a more diverse range and higher level of responsibilities. The Divisional Managers and the Directors represent the Senior Management team in the Agency responsible for the development of organisation-wide policies and strategies and industrial sectoral policy development. These positions also have operational responsibilities for a number of departments/functions.
The SPSO grade does not carry the same diverse range of responsibilities as the Grade 1 Divisional Manager role. The SPSO grade, in some cases, reports to a Divisional Manager. The SPSO grade is, and has consistently been, the appropriate grade for a manager with operational responsibility for a technical programme. This assertion is confirmed by the existing long established relativities with Teagasc technical grades etc.
It should be noted that both the SPSO and the Grade 1 grades provide promotional outlets for staff on the PSO grade.
2. Senior Scientific Officers
The former ABT Grade 7 is one of these grades represented by SIPTU in Enterprise Ireland (EI) that had similar business development job functions - the other two grades were ex-IDA 3 and ex-ABT Grade 6. As part of Enterprise Ireland/Forfás management's approach to regularise and reduce the number of grades performing similar roles and operating at essentially the same levels of responsibility, an agreement was concluded last year with SIPTU for the establishment of a single new grade - Level E _ which assimilated the former-ABT Grades 6 and the ex-IDA grade 3. The two hundred and thirty (230) staff in the agencies on this grade (Level E) are generally 3rd level graduates with degrees, and in some cases higher degrees, in Business, Marketing, Organisation and Development as well as Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. These staff would have ten years plus experience working in a project consultancy and advisory role to develop Business and Industry in Ireland.
The new Level E grade has a maximum salary scale point equivalent to the max. salary point of the Senior Scientific Officer (SSO) grade. (Details of the salary scales provaded to the Court.) The level of remuneration reflects the fact that the Level E and SSO Grades have similar educational and experience profiles and carry similar levels of responsibility.
In establishing the new Level E grade salary scale it was recognised that the 24 staff on the former ABT Grade 7 would have a salary max. of circa. £1,500 greater than that of either the Level E and SSO. It was agreed that the staff on the ex-ABT 7 grade would be red-circled and that no further appointments would be made to this grade.
It should be noted that here are 24 people on this grade in contrast with c.370 on the Level E and SSO grades (i.e. 233 on Level E and 140 at SSO).
Conceding the Union's claim for an increase in the SSO scale is unsustainable for the following reasons:
Internal relativities: The agencies believe that in aligning the maximum of the salary scale for Level E with that of the SSO salary maximum they have achieved a fair and equitable 'harmonised' solution for all the staff involved who operate at the same levels of responsibility. The ex-ABT 7 salary scale which applies to a relatively small number of staff on a red circled basis is an anomaly within the overall grading structure and there is no business rationale for extending this pay scale within the agency. The effect of increasing the max. of the SSO salary would eliminate the harmonisation already achieved and would have serious consequences for the agreement concluded with SIPTU last year.
External relativities: As outlined above, this grade has strong, long-established relativities in the public sector and Civil Service. Any alteration to the scale would have serious ramifications in the wider public sector.
Public Sector Pay Policy: Enterprise Ireland/Forfas is a public sector organisation and, as such, must operate within Public Sector policy. MSF, as a member of ICTU, has signed up to Public Sector pay deals (PPF, P2000, PCW) all of which preclude the application of general pay awards outside of these agreements.
3. In relation to Senior Scientific Officer, the Agency believe that there is no overall harmonisation issue at this grade.
However, in recognition of limited career opportunities, it envisages 10 opportunities for advancement to PSO from SSO within the next five years.
In addition to this, the Agency will invest in a significant innovative career development programme whereby staff on this grade can apply for support to undertake a review of their personal development needs and future career aspirations whether it be within or outside of the organisation.
Scientific Officer (SO): SOs have automatic progression to the Senior Scientific Officer scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that significant progress has been made on a number of aspects of this claim. The outstanding claims presented to the Court relate to the Senior Principal Scientific Officer (S.P.S.O.) and the Senior Scientific Officer (S.S.O).
1.Senior Principal Scientific Officer (S.P.S.O)
The Court recommends that the Management meet the Union request for clarification in relation to the future, and the criteria to be used, for this post. On the grading claim the Court, based on the information supplied, is satisfied that the responsibilities are not at the Grade 1 level.
However, the Court accepts that there may be particular post holders who feel their roles merit upgrading and in these cases the Court recommends that claims be brought forward on an individual basis, for consideration.
2.Senior Scientific Officer (S.S.O.)
The problems arising in this category are as a result of the Harmonisation exercise carried out with the other Union group. The Court is conscious that it has only very limited knowledge as to the justification and basis of this harmonisation.
Management has stated clearly that it believed that justification existed for the harmonisation but that no basis exists for conceding the claimants' case.
The Court is satisfied that had the negotiations been conducted jointly as originally intended the problems currently before the Court are unlikely to have arisen.
The Court, while concerned at the background history of these negotiations, having considered all the information before it, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd August, 2000______________________
TOD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.