FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FÁS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed in the Services To Business Division (STB) of FAS. He is involved in the FAS Overseas Graduate Programme (OGP) which places newly qualified Irish Graduates into full-time employment with companies abroad. The Claimant is remunerated as a Grade 8 FAS employee. The Union claims that in view of the Claimant's duties and responsibilities he should be upgraded to a Management Grade (Grade 6) position. FAS rejected the claim. 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 13th October, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 9th January, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1994 the OGP was headed by a Grade 5 Manager with three Grade 8 staff and clerical support provided in various ways. At this time 28 placements of Graduates overseas were made. Currently the Claimant is the only staff member employed in the OGP and has responsibility for all matters in OGP and the current placement of Graduates overseas is running at 25.
2. The current structure for the STB Division as provided to the Union last year clearly identifies the Claimant as a Grade 7 Assistant Manager, yet he is remunerated at Grade 8.
3. Recent Competency /Performance reports signed by both the Director of STB and a Manager in STB clearly and unequivocally establishes the Claimant's management role.
4. FAS runs another such placement programme with NASA and the person with responsibility for this programme is a Grade 6 Manager.
5 Due to its success an expansion of the OGP is to take place. Surely this expansion needs to take account of the resources and in particular the Claimant's legitimate claim for recognition of his managerial role as recognised by senior FAS Management and SIPTU.
6. The claim is not cost increasing as the cost of staffing since 1994 has greatly diminished by the non- replacement of four fully dedicated and permanent staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant in this case is employed as Grade 8 staff member. He is required to do Grade 8 work as per his Grade 8 contract of employment-no less and no more. Grade 8 staff, including those in STB, deal with clients at all levels of industry including senior management. The workload of many Grade 8 staff would also be significantly higher than that of the Claimant. FAS cannot accede to a claim for the appointment of a staff member, without competition, to a non-existent higher grade post. Promotional vacancies in the Public Service must firstly be within approved staffing establishments and then filled as per procedure through open competition. In the past, Grade 8 staff members have routinely gained promotion in FAS according as higher grade vacancies arise. It is to be hoped that the Claimant will enjoy similar success in FAS in the future. However, such personal advancement can only come about through agreed procedures and open competitions.
2. In 2004/2005 strenuous efforts were made to involve and consult with staff on a new structure which would more accurately reflect the agreed strategic priorities of FAS. Working parties were set up and several proposed structures were put forward and discussed. The fact that one or other of these draft structures showed the Claimant as a Grade 7 does not make him a Manager.
3. The Claimant did receive a favourable Competency/ Performance report prior to a promotional competition for a number of Grade 7 vacancies advertised in April , 2006. He was interviewed by a panel which included an independent external member. However, the Claimant was not successful in his application and was not appointed to the Grade 7 panel.
4. FAS proposes to work with Enterprise Ireland to try to increase the number of graduates placed through OGP to a targeted 65 per annum. However, if this initiative goes ahead and if it requires an increase in staff resources for the OGP going forward, the post or posts will be advertised at an appropriate level and filled by open competition or internal rotation as appropriate.
5. The Union has made several similar claims in recent years requesting recommendations that individuals be promoted without competition on the basis that the individual feels they deserve it . However, the Court has made its position clear with regard to interfering in the legitimate selection process or anointing staff into promotional posts (LCR 18319 refers).
6. The claim is cost increasing and would create an unsustainable precedent.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim made by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th January, 2007
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.