FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : QUALITY AND QUALIFICATIONS IRELAND (QQI) (REPRESENTED BY BILL SHIPSEY S.C. INSTRUCTED BY WHITAKER & CO., SOLICITORS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Organisational structure and refusal to recognise parity with the Education Sector.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union for parity with the rest of the Public Service in terms of the structure and organisation and a claim by the Workers who transferred to Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) from HETAC for recognition of their link with the education sector. The Employer said no staff suffered a reduction in remuneration arising from the transfer and that the 2012 Act establishing QQI does not require a collective agreement if staff are brought to less beneficial conditions of service. This 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 21st May 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th July 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There will be a negative impact on promotional opportunities for staff at all grades, if and when the moratorium is lifted. As there are no clear roles, consistent with public/civil service grades/roles, many individuals are unable to describe their current level of responsibility.
2. Executive Administrative staff, irrespective of their grade, are required to carry out the same task, ignoring the fact that four salary bands concerned vary by €32,000. Some staff report to staff at their own grade while some senior managers have been moved downwards and no longer have decision making roles.
3. The link with the education sector has its origins in a dispute between the National Council for Education Awards which resulted in a local agreement in June 1999. Prior to the establishment of QQI, this protection was still in place and was replaced by assurances by the Minister for Education and Skills who stated that it is not intended to “undermine the working conditions of staff transferring to the new authority”.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff retained their grades upon transfer to QQI. Accordingly QQI had 10 different grades of which some are equivalent to civil service grades while others are equivalent to grades pertaining in the Institutes of Technology.
2. It was necessary to devise a structure for QQI and to allocate staff within that structure so that upon establishment day, QQI could commence operations. The ‘Organogram’ reflects a layered structure in which staff grades are respected.
3. QQI is a non-commercial semi-state body. Circulars relating to the education sector do not apply to QQI.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the extensive submissions made at the hearing and the subsequent submissions made by the parties, the Court finds as follows and recommends accordingly.
Leave Entitlements
The Staff that transferred into this body from HETAC through the HEA have an agreed relationship with the education sector for pay and conditions of employment, including annual leave. This agreement should be honoured until an alternative agreement is put in place.
Grading/Reporting Structure
The Court notes that the pay and grading structure in this body reflect those in place in the Civil service generally. Accordingly, the Court recommends that staff be assigned work associated with their pay-grade and be managed within a structure that respects those grades.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
16th October, 2014Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.