FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referencer Grade
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue relates to a claim by the Union for a job evaluation for the 'Referencer Grade' employed in Fingal, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and South Dublin County Councils. The Union submitted a claim for all Referencers employed in the three Dublin Authorities to be regraded from Grade IV to Grade V. There are currently 2 Referencers employed in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and South Dublin County Councils and 5 Referencers employed in Fingal County Council. The County Councils rejected the Union's claim.
The claim could not be resolved at local level. Management were not prepared to avail of the resources at the Labour Relations Commission. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 30th June, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour court hearing took place on the 3rd October, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The claim reflects the increasing roles, responsibilities and workload of the grade. The role of the Referencer is becoming more technical on foot of additional legislation.
2. The Referencers have been flexible to the demands placed upon them and cooperate with organisational changes and changing needs.
3. An independent evaluation of the 'Referencer Grade' will support the Union's claim.
4. Correspondence from senior line management dated September and December 2002, support the Referencers claim for regrading and confirming the increasing responsibilities they have taken on board.
5. The Referencers in each County Council have been a source of vital information that could not be sourced elsewhere.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1This is a pay claim which is precluded under the terms of both the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) and Sustaining Progress.
2. In the context of the Public Service Benchmarking Body, any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay in whatever form will be subsumed within the benchmarking exercise and will be dealt with solely in that context.
3. There is no justifiable case for a job evaluation for the 'Referencer Grade'. The claim is in breach of the commitments given by the Union.
4. The Union accepted the terms of the PPF and agreed to have the 'Referencer Grade' B listed beside Grade IV under the benchmarking exercise.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, finds that this claim is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress agreements.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th October, 2003______________________
JB/Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.