FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FÁS - AND - MANAGER CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT UNIT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2002, in a response to dealing with minor claims within Fás, an external independent panel, agreed between Fás and the unions was set up, comprising of an independent chairperson, a trade union nominee and a management nominee. The process of dealing with the claims was agreed between Fás and the Unions, as was the method of presenting claims. Fás and the Unions accepted the outcomes and they were implemented.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by a worker to have the decision of the panel in relation to his claim reversed. The worker concerned employed at grade VI managerial level, was seeking an upgrade to grade IV level.
Fás rejects the claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th August,2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th November 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The managerial position which the worker holds, involves a high level of duties and responsibilities not expected of grade VI employees and when compared with another agency performing a similar role to that of the worker, the worker believes the position to be that of grade IV level within Fás.
2. The worker was of the understanding from his manager that changes made to his application form prior to interview, allowed for the right to appeal. He sought to appeal the result but was informed that this was not possible.
3. The panel assessing the minor claims was flawed, in that the Management representative was not equipped to consider the claim.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Any review that could take place after interview, could only be in relation to the content of the worker's application, and not the judgement of the panel. There was no disagreement about the content and the application form was not altered.
2.The panel was not flawed, in that it was an independent panel, external to Fás and agreed with the Unions.
3. Fás and the Unions accepted the outcome of the panel decisions and it would not be realistic to change any decision made, as other members of staff who were unsuccessful could seek to have the decision overturned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties to the dispute. The Court has no doubt that the manager performed to the highest standard in carrying out a demanding and highly important role as manager of the unit concerned. However, his claim for regrading was appraised through the agreed process and was unsuccessful. It appears clear that the assessment panel was in possession of all material information when they reached their conclusions on the application.
Whilst the Court has some sympathy for the claimant, it cannot offset or supplant the conclusions of the agreed expert body which evaluated the post and concluded that it was appropriately graded. In the circumstances, the Court does not see any basis upon which it could recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th November 2003______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.