LCR22311

1.'Re: Grading Of Role/Position Within Workforce'

BACKGROUND:

2.BACKGROUND:

This dispute was referred to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 November 2020.

UNIONS ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. The Union argues that the Claimant is undertaking duties that are above his pay grade and is seeking that the worker be re-graded.

2. The Union is seeking an independent job-evaluation in order that the role of the Claimant re-graded.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

• 1. It is the Employer's view that this is a cost-increasing claim and must be viewed in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Agreement.2.The Employer says that the re-grading of the role is a national issue andno job evaluation scheme exists in the Local Authority sector.
  

The Court understands that the Claimant considers that he is being required to undertake duties which exceed his role and that he is seeking to be re-graded to Grade 6. Grade 6 is the grade level of the role of a Social Inclusion Development Officer whose functions and duties equate, in the submission of the Claimant, to the functions and duties actually carried out by the Claimant.

The employer asserts that no agreed job-evaluation scheme exists in the Local Authority sector for the grades involved in this trade dispute. The employer further asserts that if a post at Grade 6 was created in response to this claim, it would, in accordance with agreement, conduct a competition to fill the post. Finally, the Council submitted that the Claimant does not carry out duties beyond his role such as to form a basis for re-grading of the role of Community Warden nationally.

The Court understand that the grading of the post of Community Warden is a matter which has ap-plication nationally. If the Trade Union side seek a re-grading of all Community Warden positions nationally then such a matter would require to be engaged upon nationally.

It appears to the Court however that the Claimant is seeking a re-grading for himself alone on the basis that he carries out duties at a higher level than his Community Warden colleagues and in fact at a level consistent with the role of SIDO which is graded at Grade 6. In those circumstances, any resolution of the matter in dispute should be explored locally.

In all of the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that the parties engage locally to identify the areas of the Claimant’s actual job which he contends exceed his role. When the parties have achieved a shared understanding of that factual matter, further engagement through agreed procedures should take place to resolve any dispute which might arise from that shared understanding of the factual position as regards the job role and function being expected of the Claimant by the Council.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
8 December, 2020	Chairman