FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 3 upgrade claims
BACKGROUND:
2. The case refers to three separate stand alone claims for upgrade.
Claim 1. College technician in Clonakilty who had taken on additional work, to be upgraded to Experimental Officer Grade 1.
Claim 2.Librarian, Clerical Officer level, Union sought Executive Officer level upgrade in line with two other centres.
Claim 3.Leitrim County Office, there being no Chief Executive Officer, Union sought Staff Officer upgrade for Clerical Officer with additional responsibilities.
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 19th May, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st August, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1.These are clearly the type of claims provided for under the minor claims provisions of Sustaining Progress. While Management's financial difficulties exist, they still are bound to honour Sustaining Progress. Their refusal to honour the minor claims provisions is therefore petty and unsustainable.
2. The Claimant's duties and responsibilities have increased in the period since these claims were first lodged.
3. Management, by suggesting that the claimants hand back their increased responsibilities are recognising these extra responsibilities. The claimants handing back of responsibilities is rejected as unworkable and if acceptable to the claimants would result in substantial payment due for the periods involved to date.
4. The three separate claims lodged by the Union are for individual claims and the Union has no other individual grading claims.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 It would be incompatible with the current cost reduction programme to implement the promotions/upgrading as requested by the Union.
2. Management is currently implementing a rationalisation programme to address its financial difficulties. Teagasc's H.Q. building and a number of other assets have been sold in recent years. A 25% cut in overtime and a 10% reduction in travel and subsistence have reduced operating expenses.The cost savings are essential if Management is to achieve a balance budget in 2003.
3. Management is also not filling two out of every three vacancies that arise in the organisation. The policy of filling one in every three posts requires the organisation to make difficult choices in deciding on the priority posts to be filled. This process would be even more problematical if grading claims had to be accommodated within the policy of filing one in three posts.
4. Management maintains that each of the posts are correctly graded and that the claims are unsustainable given the duties of each of the individuals. The claims are clearly in breach of the National Agreement Sustaining Progress. To concede the claim or a review of the posts concerned would leave Management in a very difficult position vis-a- vis with possible similar claims being lodged.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that it is not the appropriate forum for consideration of such a claim and accordingly recommends that an evaluation of the duties of the three individual claimants should be undertaken.
The methodology of such an evaluation exercise should be agreed between the parties. It should be understood by all parties that this evaluation does not imply any commitment to any adjustment in rates of pay for the individuals in question. It should also be understood that the implementation of any findings of the evaluation would be subject to the terms of all relevant national or local agreements.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd September, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.