FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Job Evaluation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute concerns job evaluation of the secretarial grades of staff in the College. The staff are graded from grade 1 to grade 4. There have been two previous job evaluations in 1987/88 and 1997/98. During 2003/04 both parties entered into a process under HAY consultancy and agreed a mechanism for job evaluation of clerical posts. These job evaluations have not commenced as major difficulties and dispute arose when the list of jobs to be evaluated were put forward by the Union. Management would not agree with the Union's list and claimed that three posts included in that list should not be subject to job evaluation as they were not secretarial posts. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th January, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 7th February, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management did not inform the Union that it had created three specialist posts which had been covered by previous job evaluations. The Union sought clarification from Management but did not get satisfactory answers. Workers are very dissatisfied and consider that there is a lack of transparency and fairness surrounding Management's actions.
2. The Union, in an effort to move the process forward, would have been prepared to red- circle the three posts (though not happy with the situation) in return for Management discussing the issues of long service increases and additional annual leave. Management was not willing to do so.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The jobs that the Union are seeking to include in the job evaluation process are not secretarial posts and as such should not be included in a job evaluation of secretarial posts. There is no formal agreement between College and the Union as to which posts are secretarial and which are not. It is Management's prerogative to decide which posts are secretarial and which posts were specialist posts. The three posts in dispute are specialist posts, none of the postholders carry out secretarial duties.
2. The College has increased the number of secretarial posts from 69 in 1998 to 105 in 2006. The number of secretarial posts has increased by 36 posts, these posts were neither agreed nor approved by the Union.
3. The College would agree to pay upgraded staff from the date of the first job evaluation committee meeting to evaluate posts as had been the previous practice in job evaluations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute arose over a job evaluation exercise for secretarial positions when the Union discovered that Management had created three specialist posts, which were placed outside of the secretarial grades covered by the previous job evaluation exercise. These posts had been established without consultation with the Union who now seek to have the posts covered by the current job evaluation exercise, which is overdue.
The appointment of three positions offscale has led to mistrust between Management and the Union who are of the view that their appointment lacked transparency and fairness. Management indicated that the three posts in question had added responsibilities and arose on the consideration of the College's staffing requirements.
The Court recognises the need to ensure confidence in the system and to ensure that any system of job evaluation is both open and transparent. Similarly, the Court accepts that there will be occasions when specialist posts will be required, which will place employees outside of the secretarial grades. The job evaluation system as it is presently structured allows for the Job Evaluation committee to regrade a post to Administrative Assistant Grade 5, where it identifies cases weighted more towards an administrative/managerial role.
At the Labour Court hearing Management indicated that it was committed to ensuring that all posts going forward would in future be advertised internally.
At this point in time, both parties agree that in addition to the formal job evaluation exercise using HAY, there will be an ongoing internal job evaluation committee comprising management and union representatives who will evaluate posts as necessary. Furthermore, the Union indicated its willingness to consider any proposal, which may emerge from Management to introduce some form of merit based performance system.
The Court understands that the present difficulties arose due to the lack of transparency referred to above and the application of a ceiling on secretarial grades, which gave rise to a sense of frustration on behalf of secretarial staff who foresaw limited future opportunities.
The Court recommends that in the specific circumstances of this case, the three appointed posts in question should remain, and the proposed job evaluation exercise should now proceed expeditiously for all other secretarial staff and the agreed outcome should be implemented from 14th December 2004.
The Court notes that outstanding matters raised by the Union concerning claims for service related annual leave and long service increments which had been the subject of exploratory discussions at conciliation on the basis of moving this issue forward, are not properly before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th February, 2006______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.