FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FÁS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay relativity for two Grade 7 Assistant Managers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union are seeking an increase in pay for two Facilities Management Specialists as they claim that the current salary scale does not adequately reflect the increased responsibilities of the position due to changes that have occurred since the time of the last evaluation in 2000. Their claim is seen by Management as a cost increasing claim and as their role has not changed substantially since the last evaluation it would therefore be debarred under the terms of 'Towards 2016'.
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 1st May, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th August, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The job has changed substantially since the last role evaluation in 2000 and when the pay scale schedule of the comparators within the sector is taken into account, a pay increase is warranted and overdue.2. Two independent Consultant Reports agree that the current pay scale is below the market norm as potential recruits require an Architectural/Engineering qualification in order to apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. Any changes in the role and responsibility of the post, due to new regulations, do not exceed the general requirement for co-operation with ongoing change2. The claim for a further relativity/regrading process would be prohibited under the terms of 'Towards 2016' and if conceded would have serious knock-on effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union’s claim, on behalf of Facilities Management Specialists, for an increase in pay. The Union submitted that the claimants’ post was compatible with similar posts in other semi-state and organisational organisations, however, the pay rates were out of line. Furthermore, it submitted that an increase was warranted due to their additional duties/responsibilities; exposure to personal liability claims and an increased amount of statutory regulations.
Following an earlier claim for upgrading from Grade 8 to Grade 7, the claimants were the subject of an evaluation exercise carried out by the FÁS Mediation Panel in 2000. At that time the Panel recommended in favour of the upgrade, subject to the following conditions: -
i.Continuing acceptance of existing duties and responsibilities and revised qualifications and full co-operation with on-going change
ii.Full flexibility within the job role.
iii.Full co-operation with FÁS management where it identifies a temporary need to augment existing staff numbers/expertise, to handle particular projects or the overall workload – this could involve use of internal or external staff of a grade appropriate to the work to be undertaken, the contracting-in of professional services or individuals (over and above existing arrangements in this regard), or other appropriate means – with any such staff or resources being supervised by the establishment staff of the Building Services Section.
iv.Implementation of upgrading not to be used as a basis for an increase in staff numbers or for upgrading of other FÁS staff in Grade 8 or below.
- Job Title: The Panel also concludes that the traditional job title of Senior Building Services Officer inadequately reflects the significantly changed duties/responsibilities of the current job role. In the view of the Panel, a more appropriate title would be that of Building Services Specialist.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claim and dismissed the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th. September, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.