FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SFADCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Regrading of one manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the appropriate grade applicable to an employee of the Company on transfer to a new post within the organisation.
The Union is claiming that the position taken up by its member had been graded as E1(Head of Department) for the previous twelve years and that the E1 grade should have applied to its member on taking up the post.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that, following a review within the Company in 2001, there was a reduction in the number of E1 posts going forward. At the time the post was offered to the employee, it was clear that the post was at E3b level as the duties were not appropriate to the E1 level, nor was there a mention of regrading/promotion.
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 2nd of June, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The role being carried out by the claimant was evaluated in 1989 and was found to be at E1 level. No evaluation has been carried out since that date and both predecessors in the job had obtained the E1 grade.
2. There have been additional responsibilities and duties attached to the position which have not been reflected in the appropriate grading and rate of remuneration.
3.A job evaluation Agreement reached between the Company and the Union in 2000 covers all jobs up to and including E3b level. While it does not specifically include higher positions within the Company, it does not exclude them from the process. Traditionally these posts were evaluated as required.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant requested a transfer within the organisation which was agreed to. At no time was the issue of re-grading mentioned. If the position was a promotional post, it would have been advertised throughout the Company and been subject to a competitive interview.
2. The E1 grade as requested is not the appropriate grade for the position. The E1 grade is a director grade. The claimant, by way of a lateral transfer within the Company, retained his own grade (E3b).
3. Concession of the claim would lead to repercussive claims within the organisation as there are up to 13 other staff at E3b level.
4. The Company's staff costs represent a very high proportion of its revenue. This has resulted in a required change in grading structures within the Company. Any further increase in costs would be unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the Union’s claim that the Company failed to apply the agreed grade to a senior manager on transfer from one position to another. The Company contends that the transfer was a redeployment at his own grade and that due to the new reorganised structure which has taken place within the Company, the grade sought by the Union is now confined to director level only - posts which are confined to competitive interview. The senior manager concerned is not operating at director level.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court finds in favour of the Company’s position and in all the circumstances does not accept that there is any need for a job evaluation exercise to be carried out, as sought by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th September, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.