FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL OF IRELAND - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Job evaluation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The National Youth Council of Ireland is grant aided through the Department of Education and is the representative body for voluntary youth organisations. It employs 22 full-time equivalent staff whose grades were largely determined by historical factors and contained some anomalies. In 2002/2003 Management decided to create a new staffing structure that would compare with Public Service pay scales and grades. Consultants were employed to carry out a job evaluation and suggest comparator pay scales however disagreement arose over whether standard or higher pay scales should be used.
On the 21st August, 2007 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th November, 2007.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The project team agreed that the criteria should be numerically weighted. The Union submitted that nowhere in the report is it clear what weight was applied to any of the elements identified. Documentation with valuable information relating to this has now been destroyed.
2. The Company ought to complete a points factor job evaluation exercise to ensure an open and transparent scheme which will allow staff to identify why and where they are on a particular salary scale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A number of meetings took place between Management, Union and the Consultants. No objections were raised regarding the process nor any aspect of the evaluation.
2. The process was jointly managed by the Union who now seem to reject the generic post role profiles methodology used and suggest that there is no transparency with the Consultant's job-evaluation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union's non-acceptance of a Job-Evaluation exercise carried out in the Council in 2005. The Union's main difficulty concerned the lack of transparency as no details could be provided on the numeric value attributed to the weighting of the jobs evaluated.
The Council submitted that the exercise was conducted in an appropriate manner, the resulting report was accepted by the Board of the Council and it was anxious to implement the report.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court is not satisfied that the exercise was conducted in an open and transparent manner and accordingly, recommends that a new Job-Evaluation exercise should be undertaken based on a quantitative numeric system which is clearly open and transparent. The Court recommends that the Board should ensure that the exercise is conducted in a professional manner, with the appropriate level of consultation with the Union.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that both parties should endeavour to complete the exercise by the end of March, 2008.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2007.______________________
JF.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.