LCR20551

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/12/698

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR20551

(CCc-117816-11)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

HSE

- AND -

IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:
1. (ii) cut off point on Grade 8 scale for staff who have not obtained the relevant qualification. (ii) incremental progression. (iii) trigger number in the new structure for filling of General Manager level positions.

BACKGROUND:

2. The case concerns a dispute between the HSE and IMPACT in relation to staffing structures of the Internal Audit Directorate of the HSE. Specifically there are three issues in dispute, (i) cut off point on Grade 8 scale for staff who have not obtained the relevant qualification, (ii) incremental progression (iii) trigger number in the new structure for the filling of General Manager level positions.

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 20th December 2012.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June, 2013.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

2. 1.Grade 8.The Union contends that workers should, while studying to attain the required qualification progress to the 4th point of the scale. Staff who are studying and stopped at the 3rd point on the scale will be disadvantaged as a result of management's proposals.

2.Incremental Progression.The staff in question should receive recognition for the time which has elapsed from their appointment to the application of the appropriate pay scale.

3.General Manager Positions. Management's proposal that staffing levels should reach 50 prior to competitions being held for the vacant General Manager post is unrealistic as these levels will not be reached in the current circumstances. The Union is seeking that these posts be filled to ensure transparency in the service.

MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1.Grade 8.Staff can apply for the Grade 8 posts and if appointed, they must undertake to achieve the required additional qualification. Management contend the 3rd point is the appropriate point on the pay scale while the staff in question attain the relevant qualification.

2.Incremental Progression.Management cannot agree to the Unions proposals on this issue due to the current moratorium and the provisions of FEMPI legislation. There are many HSE staff in similar situations who are acting in higher roles without an agreement on the payment of incremental credit.

3.General Manager Positions.Management believes that the number of staff should reach 50 prior to a competition being held for the vacant General Manager posts. If competitions were to be held before these levels were reached it would inevitably lead to a staff structure that had excessive levels of senior management.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue before the Court was referred under Clause 1.24 of the Public Sector Agreement 2010 – 2014 (herein referred to as “PSA”) and concerns outstanding issues on a proposed new structure for the Internal Audit function of the HSE. Substantial agreement had taken place between the parties on the new structure, however, three issues remain to be resolved between the parties. The three areas are (i) cut-off point on Grade 8 for unqualified staff for the first filling of this level, (ii) incremental progression and (iii) trigger point for filling of General Manager positions.

Having considered the positions of both sides the Court recommends as follows:-

(i)Cut-off point on Grade 8

There is agreement between both sides that this is a temporary situation and will impact on a small number of staff. The Court recommends that the cut-off point on Grade 8 for those staff who have not attained the appropriate qualifications should be point 4 of the scale.

(ii)Incremental progression

The Union sought recognition for incremental progression purposes should be given for the time which elapsed between the appointment to the grade and the application of the standard pay scales, accordingly the employee should be placed on the relevant point of the scale at time of appointment. HSE submitted that it is prohibited by the terms of both the Moratorium on Recruitment and Promotions in the Public Service and Financial Emergency in the Public Interest(FEMPI)Acts 2009 and 2010 from paying the appropriate increments and that this is a matter which will be determined at the appropriate time in line with policies and regulations determining starting pay on promotions.

The Court accepts that HSE are confined by the terms of the moratorium and FEMPI from applying the appropriate increments in this case. These issues affect a large number of employees in the public sector beyond the confines of this case. When this matter is address at national level the agreed outcome reached should apply to the employees affected.

(iii)trigger point for filling of General Manager positions

There are four approved posts at General Manager level, three of which need to be filled. HSE argue that they should not be filled until the number of staff in Operations Division (up to and including Grade 8) reaches 50 at which point competitions would be held for the vacant General Manager positions. The Union dispute this and highlighted for the Court the central role which such positions hold in the new structure and sought the filling of such posts at the same time as the filling of all other positions.

The Court determines that following finalisation of the current recruitment process for the filling of Grade 8 and consequential vacant positions, at which point the numbers employed in the new structure will be known, then the parties should meet to progress the issue of the filling of the vacant General Management positions. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the parties may refer the issue back to the Court for a binding decision.

The above Recommendation is binding on both parties in accordance with Clause 1.24 of the PSA.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Caroline Jenkinson
20th June 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.