FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Changes to increment form.
BACKGROUND:
2. BACKGROUND:
The issue before the Court relates to the format of Limerick County Council’s increment form.
The current format of the increment form was agreed with IMPACT Trade Union in January 2003.
In 2004 as a consequence of Sustaining Progress it was agreed to introduce the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) within each Authority. This system of staff and team appraisal requires employees to undergo in the same area as covered by the increment form.
In 2004 the Union requested that the increment form be reviewed in the light of the introduction of PMDS and also in view of the fact that a new grievance and disciplinary procedure had been introduced which again covered some of the areas to be assessed for the award of increments.
The Union engaged in industrial action in October 2004 in relation to this issue. The Union subsequently withdrew their action resulting in discussions on the issue in February 2005.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under theauspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th July, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th November, 2007.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the areas listed for assessment on the increment form constitute a full performance assessment for each employee and are so wide as to be open to abuse.
2. The Union believes that the Council is entitled to assess an employee’s service, and if service is not satisfactory, to withhold an increment until such time as service improves.
4. The criteria for the award of annual increments conflicts with other procedures in operation within the Authority. The procedure used to assess eligibility for the award of annual increments duplicates the provisions of the disciplinary procedure.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The revised form is entirely based on the original form agreed with IMPACT and LAPO in 2003, the only change being an omission of certain questions that are now capable of being addressed through the PMDS process.
2. The original form forms part of a three-way agreement. Consultation with the third part i.e. LAPO would need to take place.
3. It is reasonable for the County Council to define the terms service/performance into its constituent parts. This is an aid both to the staff member and the supervisor in determination of satisfactory performance under each of the headings. It also ensures consistency of performance across the entire organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
A dispute arose over the use of the form required when certifying a staff member for payment of incremental points. This form was introduced following agreement with the Council, the Union and one other Union (not party to this hearing) in 2002. In 2004 as part of the “Sustaining Progress” agreement, Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) was set up. The Union contends that the contents of the 2002 form duplicate the information gathered as part of PMDS and sought a simpler more straightforward process for confirming if an employee’s service in the preceding year met the standards expected. In an effort to resolve this dispute Management offered to revise the 2002 form in light of the roll out of PMDS within the organisation.
The Union stated that the difficulty with the 2002 form lies principally with the Council’s lack of target setting and consequently, the uncertainty surrounding their objectives.
Having examined the form and considered the submissions of both parties and the suggestions put forward at the hearing, the Court recommends that clause “5” of the form should be amended to show “Satisfactory Performance” / “Unsatisfactory Performance” instead of “Comments” as it read as present.
In addition, the Court recommends that under the appeal procedures, if and where an employee requests an appeal to a Senior Manager, other than the Human Resources Manager, the Council should facilitate this request.
This process should be completed in discussions with all the relevant parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th January 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.