FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - AND - SIPTU CONNECT UNITE F�RSA DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Job evaluation scheme.
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 9 August 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 September 2018.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job evaluation scheme used to determine each job with the Employer did not acknowledge required professional qualifications.
2. Employees who sought to appeal the initial decisions did not participate in the appeals process because they believed it was neither independent nor impartial.
3. A Court appointed independent evaluator should be assigned to carry out a review of the job evaluation process and appeal process.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer, with the agreement of the Unions, engaged the Hay Group to conduct a job evaluation exercise.
2. This included a robust appeals process for any employee who believed that the Hay Group may have incorrectly sized their role.
3.The Hay method for job evaluation is a widely accepted independentprocess. It would not be practicable for another consultancy firm not part of the Hay Group to carry out a review of one or more jobs in isolation as they would not be familiar with the structure and hierarchy of roles and responsibilities within the Employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court, brought by all the Unions involved, concerns the appeals process contained in the job evaluation exercise carried out within the organisation in 2015. The appointment of the Hay Group to conduct the exercise was agreed by all parties in November 2014. Included in that exercise was an appeal process and the agreement stated as follows: -
- “An independent appeals process had been put in place for any individual who believes Hay Group may have incorrectly sized their role.”
Once the appeals process got under way, the Unions expressed a lack of confidence in the process as it was conducted by an internal Hay Group Consultant. Management understood that this was an independent process as the Hay Consultant tasked with carrying out the appeals was not involved in the initial job evaluation exercise.
The Court notes that the job evaluation exercise is part of a restructuring programme to revise grading structures, pay and conditions of employment within the organisation. This process has been ongoing for a number of years and has involved extensive negotiations between the parties. Other issues have been “parked” pending the outcome of this dispute before the Court.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that the appeals process included in the original job evaluation agreement should be replaced and substituted by a process independent of all parties and of the Hay Group. On that basis, if agreed by both sides, the Court will recommend and nominate an appeals process to carry out the appeals on the following conditions: -
- i.Those wishing to avail of an appeal must submit their appeal in writing, to include any relevant documentation to support their case.
ii.The appellants must accept to be bound by the outcome of the appeal as being final and conclusive.
On acceptance of this Recommendation by both sides, the Court will make the above-mentioned nomination.
With the co-operation of all involved the independent appeals process should commence engagement as soon as practicable and should complete the engagement by no later than 30thNovember 2018.
The Court would expect the parties to make a decision on this Recommendation as a matter of urgency.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18 September 2018______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.