FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. The grading of 3 staff in University College Cork.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by the Union that 3 staff members are incorrectly graded and categorised by University College Cork.
- The Union are seeking a job evaluation with a view to rectifying the situation of their grade and category.
The University said this is a cost increasing claim and that such claims are precluded by the Lansdowne Road Agreement.
- 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 the 12th September 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5thOctober 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The roles of all three staff have evolved significantly since their original grading in 2005.
2. Any fair evaluation of their roles would without doubt, indicate that the staff have been employed far below the appropriate grade.
3. Academic staff have a progression scheme which allows them to move up through their grades.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2005 the administrative posts were evaluated through the internal grading evaluation process.
2. This evaluation process has been suspended since 2008 in line with the Employment Control Framework.
3. Any concession to this claim has the potential to lead to knock-on or repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Union contends that three members are performing work which should be graded at a level higher than that currently occupied by the three members. The current grades occupied by the members are administrative grades within the College’s grading structure. The Trade union seeks a Grading evaluation exercise to be carried out in order to review the grading applied to the three posts. The Trade Union confirmed that any outcome which altered the grading of the posts would be in the form of the allocation of different and presumably higher grades within the administrative grading structure of the College.
The parties have advised the Court that the current grading allocated to the three posts was established in 2005 as a result of a grading evaluation exercise. The parties also advised the Court that the internal grading evaluation process for administrative posts in the College has been suspended for some time.
The Court has been advised that a promotion campaign is underway within the Administrative structure of the College whereby staff graded as administrative staff currently have the opportunity to apply for promotion in a manner which would promote them to a different grade while retaining their current role. It appears that promotions are available for approximately 10% of the administrative staff of the College.
The Court has been advised that the parties have been and remain engaged with regard to the issue of whether the previous arrangement in the College for administrative grading evaluation which has been suspended for some time should be re-activated.
The Court has been provided with a document entitled ‘Chairman’s Note’ dated 28thMay 2015. The Court notes that this document appears to afford either party the prerogative of putting forward a ‘business case’ for authorisation to conduct a job evaluation exercise. It is for the parties to exercise what appears to be their agreed prerogative as they consider appropriate.
The Court recommends that in the event of the administrative grading evaluation process referred to above being re-activated the posts which are the subject of this case should be evaluated as soon as possible thereafter. Any such evaluation should take account of the nature of these three posts in such a way as to ensure that these posts are fully and effectively evaluated.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
21st November, 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.