FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) (REPRESENTED BY MCCANN FITZGERALD, SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. A claim for an external appeals process to examine the grades given to former Railway Procurement Agency staff in the TII.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August 2015, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) a commercial state agency and the National Roads Authority (NRA) a non-commercial state agency merged to form the Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII). As part of this merger process, it was necessary to carry out a grading exercise in order to assign public sector grades to employees of the former RPA.
- This dispute relates to a claim by the Union for an external appeals process to be put in place to examine the grades awarded to the roles filled by the 15 or 18 former employees of the RPA during the internal grading process.
- 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 27 January 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24 March 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. From the outset, the Union advised that there were difficulties in assimilating people into the public structure from one more akin to the private sector.
2. The Job Evaluation Process has failed the Claimants and will have implications for their careers and, in some cases, the earnings potential and legitimate expectations, of those members for the remainder of their working life in TII.
3. Justice demands that they be given an opportunity to state their cases to an agreed fully independent and transparent external job evaluation body.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The mechanism to assign public sector grades was agreed under a Protocol Agreement between the employers and the unions.
2. The grading process was independent and extensive and involved the application of best practice and internationally recognised methodologies of assessing the scale and complexities of merging a commercial state agency and a non-commercial state agency.
3. Any changes to the grading process could have a significant impact on TII’s organisational structure, and a potential effect of TII’s sanctioned funding at departmental level.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
This matter essentially arises from a belief on the part of 15 or 18 individuals that the grading which has been applied to the roles they occupy as a result of a grading process has resulted in an injustice to them as individuals. The Claimants contend that the process involved in applying a grading was not open or transparent, was based on inaccurate or incomplete information as regards work associated with the role in some cases and did not involve sufficient engagement in its execution. The Respondent contends that the processes employed were extensive, to a ‘best practice’ standard and were fair in terms of outcome.
The claim before the Court is not for the regrading of the 15 or 18 claimants. The claim is for the establishment of a further appeal avenue which would be externally delivered and would be binding on both parties.
The Court has been apprised of the process of merger of the RPA and the NRA to form TII. In particular the Court has had the benefit of written and oral submissions describing the process of grading employed in the formation of TII.
The Court notes that at the conclusion of the grading process 70 staff decided to appeal the grading applied to their role utilising the two stage appeal process which had been established for the purpose. Five of those appeals were successful and 65 were not. The Court understands that the 15 or 18 claimants in the within matter were unsuccessful appellants. The Court must assume that in the case of the remaining 47 or 50 appellants the appeal outcome was accepted.
The Court must treat as a significant matter the proposition that a new avenue of appeal should be established in respect of the 15 or 18 claimants before the court. The Court in particular must be cautious in considering the fact that a very extensive process has been engaged with by the parties across a range of issues arising from the merger of the RPA and NRA to form TII. The Court must respect the fact that those processes appear to have produced a stable organisational structure with a grading framework which is not disputed in terms of application by the vast majority of staff to whom it applies and which has been in place for approximately two years. Neither party before the Court is in a position to speak authoritatively as regards the effect on organisational stability of the creation of a new avenue of appeal to be available to persons who might wish to dispute the application of the grading framework to their role.
The Court notes that no person before the Court is occupying a grade which attracts a lesser rate of pay than that which they enjoyed prior to the merger of RPA and NRA and the completion of the grading process.
The Court notes that the Respondent is prepared to make the firm TW available to consult and engage individually with all of the claimants before the Court. The Court recommends that this engagement should happen and that the individuals should be facilitated to explore fully the processes employed by TW and the information utilised by TW in making decisions or recommendations including as regards the description or content of the roles considered.
The Court further recommends that, in the event of any individual remaining dissatisfied after that engagement, they should utilise the already existing grievance procedure in place in the organisation to process any grievance they may have as regards the appropriateness of the grade they occupy as against the duties or functions they are required to carry out. That grievance procedure, the Court understands, can involve referral to the Adjudication Service of the Workplace Relations Commission as necessary.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
27 March, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.