FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - FORSA DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1.Grade 7 access to the Clerical/Admin Job Evaluation Scheme & 2. HBS Heads of Function Pay
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 24th of January 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd May 2019.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The job evaluation scheme is the fairest and safest way of determining the appropriate grading of a post. The administrative structure always grouped the Grades 3 to 7 in the same grading bracket. The Grade 7 post holders are the sole occupants of this grouping who are denied access to the job evaluation.
2.The Union has set out solid and justifiable business grounds for a re-grading of the General Manager posts. The claim is restricted to a small group of HBS Finance Managers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The re-introduction of the Clerical/Admin Job Evaluation scheme in the Health sector arose from a Chairman's note under the Lansdowne Road Agreement in 2015. The Union is now seeking to extend the scope of that scheme beyond the terms of the Chairman's note and beyond the scheme that previously applied.
2. The HSE is not in a position to concede this claim. .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Trade Union seeks (a) to have an existing job evaluation scheme for Administrative staff from Grade 3 to 6 extended to include Grade 7 employees, and (b) to have 7 General Managers upgraded.
The Court notes that the job evaluation scheme which is proposed to be extended to Grade 7 was re-instituted by agreement between the parties in 2015 / 2016 arising from understandings reached at national level in the context of negotiations on the Public Service Stability Agreement 2015. That understanding did not involve the putting in place of a job evaluation scheme for Grade 7 employees.
The Court further notes the ongoing work of the Public Service Pay Commission.
The Court notes as regards the second claim before it that both parties acknowledge that any concession of the claim would involve increased costs. The Court notes the employer position that the current Public Service Stability Agreement 2018 to 2020 (PSSA) at Section 8.3 prohibits, by agreement, the serving of cost increasing claims during its lifetime.
The Court, in the absence of direct agreement between the parties, recommends that any revision of the current arrangements for job evaluation in respect of clerical and administrative staff should be considered, as previously, in the context of the parties’ national engagements on such matters whether as part of any future negotiation in relation to a successor agreement to the current PSSA or whatever forum the parties might put in place to consider such matters nationally.
The Court, noting the terms of the current PSSA agreement between the parties at Section 8.3 does not recommend concession of the claim, for upgrading of 7 individual General Managers.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CC______________________
13 May 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.