FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FOOD SAFETY PROMOTIONS BOARD - AND - ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL & PUBLIC SERVANTS PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Implementation of Grading Review.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Food Safety Promotions Board (Safefood) is a North/South Implementation Body. It was established in 1999 as a result of the Good Friday Agreement and is headquartered in Cork. It also has an office in Dublin. At the end of April 2010 it employed 31.8 whole-time equivalent staff.
Safefood has a role, on an all-island cross-border basis, to promote and research food safety.
The claim before the Court concerns five members who are all based in Cork and who work in the Corporate Operations Directorate. The Unions claim that a number of staff are incorrectly graded and in April 2008 a report into grading for six administrative posts was carried out for the Board by the Hay Group. The Report was never acted on and the Unions referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission in July 2008.
The Board accepted the proposals that were made in the Hay Group Report but claim that they cannot get sanction for the upgrades from the relevant Departments (Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance).
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th January 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th June, 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Unions maintain that they are supported in the view that the five relevant posts in the Corporate Operations Directorate were inappropriately graded relative to responsibility levels that arise in the management and work of a North-South body.
2. At a meeting in February 2007in Belfast between the CEO and the representatives of both Departments (North and South) the Unions maintain that agreement was reached that Hay Management Consultants would be engaged to carry out an evaluation of the six posts in the Corporate Operations Directorate.
3.Having regard to the Hay Report's conclusions and recommendations, and the complexities and responsibilities outlined in carrying out the respective responsibilities that are not fully recognised within the existing job specifications and their lack of equivalence to other posts in the organisation, it is strongly recommended that these posts be re-graded as claimed.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that Safefood, in 2007, without the necessary approval, commissioned the Hay Group to undertake a grading review of six positions within its Corporate Operations Dictorate.
2. It is Management's view that the comparators used in the review were flawed.
3. It is Management's position that there is no basis for the Unions' claim and that Safefood cannot be permitted to progress the review. The Department of Health and Children did not approve the undertaking of the review nor its terms of reference. Nor did any other relevant authorities, North or South.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of all parties in this case. The Court is satisfied that the Employer initiated an evaluation process to determine the merits of a claim for regrading submitted by six members of the staff of the organisation. That evaluation process determined that five of the Claimants were undergraded and that a sixth was properly graded in their respective posts.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Board implement the outcome of the evaluation process with effect from the date on which its findings were published i.e. 18th April, 2008.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
22nd June, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.