FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TCD - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Technical Grade Structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 10 February 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 . A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 March 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employer is unilaterally attempting to dismantle the nationally agreed technical staff structures within the IT services of the college. The technical grade structure is a nationally agreed structure, in place since June 2005, which applies to the Education sector in the country, and an individual employer cannot unilaterally disregard a nationally agreed structure.
2. Management adopted a confrontational approach in attempting to force through the restructuring of middle management positions which was resisted by the workers.
3.The employer is in breach of Section 3 of the agreement which states that the basic structure will have three grades, Technical Officer, Senior Technical Officer and Chief Technical Officer. The employer is also in breach of Section 4 of the agreement as the Chief Technical Officer will no longer have a managerial function. Accordingly, the career progression of the Chief Technical Officer will be affected.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The role of the Chief Technical Officer will still carry a managerial responsibility. The only difference to this role in the case of one position only, is the removal of the responsibility for disciplinary, grievance and performance issues.
2. There will be no impact on the promotional opportunities for workers employed under the technical staff structures and career progression will not be affected.
3. The three grades of Technical Officer, Senior Technical Officer and Chief Technical Officer will remain in place and those grades will continue into the future. There is no proposal to eliminate any of those grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the parties have engaged extensively in relation to the reorganisation of the College’s IT services. The Court notes that substantial levels of agreement have been reached by the parties directly and with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission.
The matter before the Court relates to the proposed Technical Grade Structure and particular reference is made by the Union side to an Expert Group on Technical Grades Report, 2005.
The Court notes that the 2005 Expert Group Report provided for a management structure of Chief Technical Officer, Senior Technical Officer and Technical Officer. The Court also notes that the proposals of management provide for the retention of these three grades. There is no proposal before the Court which would involve abolition of any grade
The Trade Union side has expressed concern that the implementation of the management side proposals will inhibit the potential for progression of Chief Technical Officers and as a consequence that of other grades. The Union side in particular raised concerns at the operation of the merit bar for promotion purposes in the future. The Court notes the confirmation by management that the implementation of the current proposals will not negatively impact the capacity of Chief Technical Officers to meet the requirements of the merit bar.
The Court has clarified that in the case of one Chief Technical Officer the implementation of the management side proposals will bring about a change to the role in terms of disciplinary, grievance and performance management functions but that a significant managerial role remains. This clarification is viewed as important by the Court particularly in the context of the assurance given by the management side as regards the operation of the merit bar into the future.
The Court notes the change in certain aspects of the role in the case of one Chief Technical Officer but also takes account of the substance of the role. The Court must have regard to the commitments to change incorporated in a succession of Public Sector Agreements since 2005 and cannot accept that the change to one Chief Technical Officer role is of such significance as to mean that management proposals constitute a breach of the 2005 Expert Group Report.
The Court recommends that the Union should accept the proposals of management and co-operate in their implementation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
30 March 2016______________________
MN.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.