FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for re-grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of three Technical Assistants, employed by University College Cork(U.C.C.) in the Biological Services Unit (B.S.U.), for regrading. The regrading is to acknowledge the vast change in duties and responsibilities that have taken place in the role from those originally set out for the post 10 years ago. The B.S.U. Unit is now more research-centered and the general and technical duties as they currently apply have evolved with the growth of the Unit.
The claim, which was lodged in early 2005, was rejected having regard to the terms of Sustaining Progress.
The Union referred the claim for re-grading to the Rights Commissioner Service but the University objected to such an investigation.
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 9th July, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The pay scales devised by the former Director of the Unit do not reflect the changes that have evolved in the role over the years. The Union maintains that the Unit has gone from being 5% research-based to 60% and 95% animal care to 40%.
2. The Union claims that the Technical Assistants now perform procedures on animals rather than assist. They have also been providing cover for research work 1 week in 4 since February 2004.
3. The Technical Assistants have continuously co-operated with the many changes required of them in their roles while the B.S.U. Unit continues to evolve and expand.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Technical Assistant grade was linked to the first Parallel Benchmarking Process carried out in relation to the pay of General Operative grades and the relevant pay increase amounted to between 17% and 18%. A second Benchmarking review is due to be completed in the near future.
2. Management does not accept that the duties of Technical Assistants are comparable to those of Technician (Class II). There are significant differences in the duties , responsibilities and qualifications that apply to post of Technical Assistant and Technician (Class II)
3. The current and previous national agreements preclude cost-increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment other than those provided for in the agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of three workers graded as Technical Assistants in the Biological Services Unit of the College for an independent review to be carried out in order to assess the merits of their claim to be regraded. This claim emerges due to the individual Claimants' belief that there has been considerable change to their duties and responsibilities since the grade was originally devised in 1994. The claim was presented to the College in 2005 and was supported by members of the Unit’s management team.
The Court is satisfied that the claim is a minor claim and is not precluded by the stabilisation provisions of the public sector pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress.
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends that a job evaluation exercise should be conducted to assess the duties and responsibilities carried out by the three Claimants employed as Technical Assistants and to consider whether a regrading of their role is appropriate in the circumstances.
Due to the length of time since the claim was submitted, the Court recommends that this matter should begiven priority and the evaluation exercise should be completed by no later that 29th February 2008.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.