FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LONGFORD COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-067171-ir-08/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by Longford County Council (represented by the LGMSB) of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-067171-ir-08/SR. The issue in dispute concerns an Environmental Awareness Officer (EAO) employed by the Council who is seeking a regrading from Grade V to Grade VI.
Management's position is that it is appropriate to evaluate both the Grade V and Grade VI roles prior to deciding on the appropriate grading structure for the postholder.The Union's position is that a job evaluation should be carried out in relation to the roles and functions of Grade VI only.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 9th January, 2009 as follows:
"It is obvious from the detailed information supplied by both parties that there is no universal post of Environmental Awareness Officer with a common job description, responsibilities or grading/pay rates across the local authorities sector, and while such a position might well be considered to be desirable, that is not a matter it would be appropriate for a Rights Commissioner to comment upon.
It is clear from the information provided by both parties that there are considerable differences in the posts across the various local authorities. It is difficult to say at this remove what if any difference in grading or remuneration is justified by these differences.
I recommend that an independent evaluation of the Claimant's post that of a number of agreed comparators performing the job of Environmental Awareness Officer, and paid the remuneration claimed by the Claimant (or higher) in other local authorities should take place. The comparators to be used should be agreed between the parties with each side nominating an equal number of the comparators to be used. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess if the work of the Claimant, including all relevant factors, is equal in value to that of the agreed comparators. In the event that it is found to be so equal then the Claimant should be upgraded from the date of this recommendation, in the event that it is not found to be so equal then the claim fails and is rejected. The person to carry out the independent evaluation should be agreed between the parties. The specific terms of reference for the independent evaluation should be agreed between the parties including the timescale for its completion, which should not exceed a 3 month period".
On the 19th February 2009, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th June, 2009.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The EAO post is not a generic post within the Local Authority sector. As each Local Authority has individual requirements, it must be for each one to evaluate and grade its positions accordingly.
2 As there are EAO posts in other Local Authorities at Grade V level, it is appropriate to include Grade V's in the process to ensure a fair and transparent evaluation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The appropriate post for the Environmental Awareness Officer in Longford County Council is Grade VI. The worker is currently graded at Grade V and it is therefore not appropriate to carry out an evaluation of comparable Grade V's.
2 In many other comparable Local Authorities, the role of Environmental Awareness Officer (EAO) is graded at Grade VI or higher. The claimant has expanded the role of EAO in Longford County Council and is doing work of equal value to that of Grade VI.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the LGMSB on behalf of the County Council of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which recommended that an independent evaluation should be carried out into the Worker's claim for a higher grade.
The Worker, employed as an Environmental Awareness Officer with the Council, sought to have his position re-graded from Grade V to Grade VI. In his Recommendation the Rights Commissioner recommended that the evaluation should examine a number of agreed comparators performing the job of Environmental Awareness Officer and paid the
remuneration claimed by the claimant (or higher) in other Local Authorities.
The Council sought to expand the scope of any evaluation to include comparators who were paid at the same grade as the Claimant i.e. Grade V. The Union on his behalf refused to include any comparator earning less than that sought i.e. Grade VI.
The Council held that as the post of Environmental Awareness Officer, while common to a number of Local Authorities is not a generic post, it does not have nationally-agreed job functions nor a nationally-agreed grading structure, therefore, there are different grades applying in the various Local Authorities. In order for the process to be fair and objective, the Council submitted that it should evaluate comparators at the same level as the Claimant (Grade V) as well as those at the higher level (Grade VI). Accordingly, it sought to amend the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that it would not be unreasonable to examine Grade V in evaluating the appropriate grade for the Claimant and accordingly recommends that the proposed evaluation should examine an equal number of comparators from both Grade V and Grade VI. Therefore, the Court upholds the Council’s appeal and varies the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.